From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 00:23:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA06098;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:22:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:22:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199811010821.CAA00873 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 03:20:24 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: More about alleged SETI hit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id AAA06075
Resent-Message-ID: <"IAEka1.0.8V1.le1Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23948
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Did you guyes see this story from MSNBC. Again, EQ Pegasi, and again, a
>narrow-beam signal...
>
>Of course, it may be the story that started the hoax...
>
>http://msnbc.com/news/198553.asp
>
>--------------------------------------
>
>ARECIBO, Puerto Rico, Sept. 20 � Command Central for Project Phoenix is pretty
>unimpressive. There�s a low shelf on which three computer workstations are
>perched like a short row of ducks. That�s it. No flashing lights. No eerie
>synthesizer sounds. No knife switches on the wall. Booooring. The observing
>can be boring, too. But there�s a reason for that.
>
>         THE REASON is that humans are fallible. Their attention wanders. They
>are lured from their chairs by the thought of a tuna fish sandwich or the call
>of nature. Consequently, the search for cosmic company is highly automated.
>Computers do the listening and decide whether a signal is worthy of the
>astronomer�s attention.

***{Yup. And 99% of the electronic circuitry and software that is involved
is working sight unseen, and may have embedded hardware and/or software
that the Project Phoenix members do not suspect. (See below.) --Mitchell
Jones}***

When I�m observing for Project Phoenix, I spend a lot of time catching up
on my reading or writing e-mail. I don�t have to squint endlessly at the
computer screens. Come to think of it, Chris Columbus probably didn�t spend
a lot of time squinting across the bow of the Santa Maria either.
>
>       Fortunately, the computers don�t get bored. They search without
>complaint through the Phoenix data stream, trying to find narrow-band spikes
>poking up out of a noisy sea of 28 million channels. On the night of Sept. 15,
>around midnight, they found something. It was a signal picked up in Arecibo,
>and verified at the 250-foot telescope in Jodrell Bank.

***{Note the above: not merely was this signal picked up in Arecibo, Puerto
Rico, but also at Jodrell Bank in England. The question is, how long did it
take to swing the massive, movable, 250 foot dish at Jodrell Bank to the Eq
Pegasi coordinates? A minute? Two minutes? Since a geosynchronous satellite
would have moved off of the Eq Pegasi coordinates very quickly, due to the
rotation of the earth, the fact that Jodrell Bank had time to verify this
signal makes it very unlikely that a satellite was the source.

The reasoning is straightforward: logically, the beam width of a radio
telescope is directly proportional to the wavelength of the signal and
inversely proportional to the diameter of the dish. My guess, therefore, is
that the formula is B = k(w/d), where B is beam width, k is a constant of
proportionality, w is the wavelength, and d is the diameter of the dish.
With a bit of digging I discovered that the 100 meter dish at the Max
Planck Institute has a beam width of 4 arc minutes at 10 cm, so 4 =
k(10/10,000), and thus k = 4000. For Jodrell Bank at 21 cm, therefore, B =
4000(21/7620) = 11 arc minutes, which is 11/60 or .18 degrees of arc. Since
a geosynchronous satellite moves 360 degrees in 24 hours, it follows that
it moves 15 degrees/hour, or .25 degrees/min. This means it will traverse
the beam of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope in about 44 seconds. Unless
the gigantic movable dish whipped over to the Eq Pegasi coordinates more
quickly than that, which I doubt, then the notion that this signal was from
a geosynchronous satellite was refuted as soon as the confirmation came
back from Jodrell Bank.

--Mitchell Jones}***

 The star was an unremarkable M dwarf with the moniker EQ Pegasi, 22
light-years from Earth.
>
>       Project scientist Jill Tarter and I watched in fascination as a thin,
>white line began to appear on a display screen. We had picked up a
>narrow-band, rapidly drifting signal, the very kind of thing that would be the
>hallmark of alien intelligence. I stood up out of my chair.
>
>       The excitement was short-lived. Within 10 minutes, we noticed that the
>signal, whatever it was, could also be seen when the telescope was pointed
>away from the star.

***{Note: the dish at Arecibo consists of a bowl-like depression in the
ground which is 305 meters across. Its surface is coated with a metallic
mesh that reflects radio waves back to a large focal area directly
overhead, where they are picked up by receivers suspended from cables. It
is thus misleading to speak of "pointing the telescope away" from Eq
Pegasi: the dish is immovable. The suspended receiver was moved to a
different location, that's all. --Mitchell Jones}***

 It was probably a telecommunications satellite � a sign of intelligence
all right, but not alien intelligence.

***{This seems like a simple-minded leap to judgment to me. Unless the
Jodrell Bank array (diameter: 250 feet) can be moved to a new set of
coordinates virtually instantaneously, the possibility of a geosynchronous
satellite as the source had already been refuted by the time the
confirmation was received back at Arecibo. (See above.) In addition, we
have the contradiction with Paul Dore's result: when he moved his array off
target, the signal disappeared. Likewise for the fellow on Guernsey, K. F.
Benton, who replicated Paul Dore's SETI hit. Benton's signal didn't appear
until Eq Pegasi rose above the horizon. Given this state of affairs, how
are we to explain the fact that the signal continued at Arecibo when the
receiver was moved to a different focal point? The answer: we can explain
it if we postulate that ET's are real and that their existence has been
given a security classification beyond top secret. For in that case, it is
obvious how Project Phoenix and similar activities would be dealt with:
since governments control the radiotelescopes, it would be a simple matter
to have secret hardware and/or software installed which, when a SETI
project asked for the receiver to be moved to see if a signal would go
away, would simply not move it or else would feed a copy of the signal back
to the observers while the receiver (or dish, if appropriate) was being
moved. That way, no SETI hits would ever be verified on a government
controlled radiotelescope. And, so far, none have been. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>       Such false alarms are frequent in Arecibo. The island is crawling with
>radar and telecommunications installations, all of which present a formidable
>challenge to those trying to tune in the cosmos. This fish got away. In fact,
>it wasn�t really a fish. So Jill and I sat back down in our chairs, and
>starting writing in the log books.
>
>       The computers, neither disappointed nor interested, continued their
>search, looking for the big one, the signal that would result in the most
>important news story of all time. The faint radio squeal that will someday end
>4 billion years of isolation.
>
>         Seth Shostak, an astronomer working at the SETI Institute, left
>Arecibo on Sunday in advance of Hurricane Georges� approach. But the SETI
>search is due to continue at the Arecibo Radio Telescope, the largest radio
>ear in the world, during two-week campaigns each March and September.
>
>       To learn more about the search for extraterrestrials, what they might
>be like and how humans would react to finding them, you can check out
>Shostak�s new book, �Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial
>Life.�
>

***{As a matter of interest, I see no way that we will ever have clear-cut
"proof" one way or the other vis-a-vis this story--not in our lifetimes, at
any rate. That is one of the consequences of living in a world where people
worship governments as if they were gods, trust them implicitly, and grant
them dictatorial powers. Even if Paul Dore and the fellow on Guernsey stand
up tomorrow and declare that this is a hoax, there will be no way for
outsiders to decide whether they are telling the truth or have succumbed to
threats. If our government were a constitutionally limited government, of
course, such a possibility would be ridiculous. Unfortunately, it escaped
from its constitutional restraints many, many years ago. As a result the
pessimists have one view, the optimists have another, and there is never
any closure. The debate about extraterrestrials just goes on, and on, and
on. --Mitchell Jones}***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 00:56:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA09893;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:55:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:55:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199811010854.CAA01026 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 03:53:32 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI
Resent-Message-ID: <"JN4Oi2.0.VQ2.o72Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23949
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> ***{If by "satellite" you mean something in orbit around the earth, that's
>> already been discussed. Such a source would move off Paul Dore's
>> coordinates in less than a minute. Since he tracked it for much longer than
>> that, the earth orbiting satellite theory is toast.
>
>But why was the signal line 'bent' down the waterfall plot? I am not
>very knowledgeable about these SETI systems.

***{I also found the plot to be a bit odd. Most radiotelescope signal
graphs that I have seen plot time on the horizontal axis and signal
amplitude on the vertical, but on this one the vertical axis showed
military style zulu times (i.e., Greenwich mean) increasing in the down
direction, and signal amplitude on the horizontal axis, increasing as we
move to the right. If that interpretation is correct, then the "waterfall"
indicates that the signal rose from zero to some peak amplitude, and was at
that peak when the plot was cut off (at the bottom). The reason for doing
it that way, I suppose, is so that you can show a continuous graph for a
long period of time, by simply rolling down the page, for page after page.
If the time scale had gone from left to right, the graph would have run off
of the paper. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
><snip>
>> And if that is, in fact, where the source is, then attempts to
>> replicate this finding are going to fail, because everybody seems fixated
>> on the assumption that the source is Eq Pegasi, rather than something in
>> our own vicinity. Nobody appears to be expecting the source to slowly drift
>> away from the original coordinates. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>But if there is indeed something in the outer solar system...who built
>it?

***{Not us. If I should ever meet them, I plan to ask for asylum. (Don't
expect a smiley here: I ain't jokin'.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Kyle R. Mcallister


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 02:04:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA16024;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 02:03:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 02:03:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199811011002.EAA01370 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 05:01:45 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: More about alleged SETI hit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id CAA16008
Resent-Message-ID: <"fN2HV1.0.Iw3.m73Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23950
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]

>>
>>       Fortunately, the computers don�t get bored. They search without
>>complaint through the Phoenix data stream, trying to find narrow-band spikes
>>poking up out of a noisy sea of 28 million channels. On the night of Sept. 15,
>>around midnight, they found something. It was a signal picked up in Arecibo,
>>and verified at the 250-foot telescope in Jodrell Bank.
>
>***{Note the above: not merely was this signal picked up in Arecibo, Puerto
>Rico, but also at Jodrell Bank in England. The question is, how long did it
>take to swing the massive, movable, 250 foot dish at Jodrell Bank to the Eq
>Pegasi coordinates? A minute? Two minutes? Since a geosynchronous satellite
>would have moved off of the Eq Pegasi coordinates very quickly, due to the
>rotation of the earth, the fact that Jodrell Bank had time to verify this
>signal makes it very unlikely that a satellite was the source.
>
>The reasoning is straightforward: logically, the beam width of a radio
>telescope is directly proportional to the wavelength of the signal and
>inversely proportional to the diameter of the dish. My guess, therefore, is
>that the formula is B = k(w/d), where B is beam width, k is a constant of
>proportionality, w is the wavelength, and d is the diameter of the dish.
>With a bit of digging I discovered that the 100 meter dish at the Max
>Planck Institute has a beam width of 4 arc minutes at 10 cm, so 4 =
>k(10/10,000), and thus k = 4000. For Jodrell Bank at 21 cm, therefore, B =
>4000(21/7620) = 11 arc minutes, which is 11/60 or .18 degrees of arc. Since
>a geosynchronous satellite moves 360 degrees in 24 hours, it follows that
>it moves 15 degrees/hour, or .25 degrees/min. This means it will traverse
>the beam of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope in about 44 seconds. Unless
>the gigantic movable dish whipped over to the Eq Pegasi coordinates more
>quickly than that, which I doubt, then the notion that this signal was from
>a geosynchronous satellite was refuted as soon as the confirmation came
>back from Jodrell Bank.

***{Another possibility came to mind shortly after I posted the above:
perhaps the telescopes at Arecibo and Jodrell Bank are both controlled by
the same computers, and move *simultaneously* from one set of celestial
coordinates to the next. That strikes me as an extremely inefficient
utilization of resources, since the 1000 foot dish at Arecibo is vastly
more sensitive. I would think that Jodrell Bank would be used for other
purposes most of the time, and would be diverted to coordinates desired by
Project Phoenix only to confirm a possible SETI hit. However, given the
well-known governmental indifference to wasting the taxpayers' money, I
can't be sure of this. Does anybody know the answer, or know where I can
find it? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
> The star was an unremarkable M dwarf with the moniker EQ Pegasi, 22
>light-years from Earth.
>>
>>       Project scientist Jill Tarter and I watched in fascination as a thin,
>>white line began to appear on a display screen. We had picked up a
>>narrow-band, rapidly drifting signal, the very kind of thing that would be the
>>hallmark of alien intelligence. I stood up out of my chair.
>>
>>       The excitement was short-lived. Within 10 minutes, we noticed that the
>>signal, whatever it was, could also be seen when the telescope was pointed
>>away from the star.
>
>***{Note: the dish at Arecibo consists of a bowl-like depression in the
>ground which is 305 meters across. Its surface is coated with a metallic
>mesh that reflects radio waves back to a large focal area directly
>overhead, where they are picked up by receivers suspended from cables. It
>is thus misleading to speak of "pointing the telescope away" from Eq
>Pegasi: the dish is immovable. The suspended receiver was moved to a
>different location, that's all. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> It was probably a telecommunications satellite � a sign of intelligence
>all right, but not alien intelligence.

[snip]


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 02:59:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA21366;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 02:58:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 02:58:34 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b261e0da7ca1 [208.228.222.232]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 02:04:39 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
Resent-Message-ID: <"L4C6y3.0.mD5.Qx3Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23951
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:53 AM 11/1/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>To Vortex;
>
>I have some innovative CF ideas I want to talk about. I don't think that I
>will have the resources to do this all on my own. So I'll just post it here
>in my next message and it will be up to you guys to determine its' worth and
>originality and help me put it together by the one year patent disclosure
>time limit or it will become public domain? This way though, we'll all be
>able to contribute with refinements. Has something like this been tried
>before? I trust every one understands and respects proper Consideration and
>Mutual Ascent concepts and rights? Is this a good idea guys? If it turns out
>to be a good one and it just goes by it may be a while before I can put
>another one together. Any comments? Anybody interested?
>
>Regards;
>Dennis

Professional serious discussion of ideas for CF (and other free energy)
experiments and devices is what this list is all about.  Of late, due to a
short term lack of experimental results, one would think the list is for
"pop" discussion of political philosophy, SETI, global warming, polar
melting, Y2K, etc.  (Yes, I'm guilty of getting off topic too!)  How
refreshing to get back on topic.  If you read the vortex archives you will
find dozens or even hundreds of CF ideas, methods, devices, experiments,
etc. posted.

Though this is a private newslist, it is a public forum - the archives are
available to anyone on the www.  There is no unusual "Consideration and
Mutual Ascent"  here with regard to patentable material or trade secrets,
as far as I know.  Posting of ideas here is a form of publication, so
copyright laws may be applicable.   Publication of patentable material
places it in public domain in many countries, eliminating your right to
obtain a patent in those countries, and as you say, starts the one year
clock here.  However, if you don't plan to give away ideas it is not good
to post them because to protect you the posting needs to contain sufficient
information to be a "reduction to practice."

Also of interest may be the fact that general ideas, theories, and
mathematical theorems are not patentable.  A patent on the function of a CF
device would be a utility patent (not a design or plant patent). What is
eligible for a utility patent in the US is a device or method which is
reduced to practice and meats additional criteria.  Reduction to practice
in the US involves either (1) building the device or testing a method, or
(2) producing  detailed drawings and a description of the device or method
sufficient for one skilled in the art to make and use the invention, e.g.
filing a patent application, less claims.   The additional criteria are
utility, novelty, and unobviousness.  The invention must function in a
unique manner to produce a useful result.  The result must be something new
and unexpected, different from what is already known publically, unobvious
to people skilled in the art, thus producing unexpected or far superior
results.  Only the true inventor(s) may apply for a patent.  For example,
companies can prepare patent applications and own part or all rights to the
patent, but the filing must name only the true inventor(s) as applicant(s)
or the patent is invalid.

Many people get the notion that they can have an "idea", quickly and easily
patent it, and sell the idea for royalties and get rich.  This is not
really how things tend to work.  The patent is mainly a tool to protect you
from competition when you manufacture and sell your product.  It is nothing
but a license to sue those who infringe on your invention.  To sue, you
typically have to be already making a profit on *something* or otherwise
have a lot of capital and spare time.   Also, without a specific agreement,
there is no protection until your patent issues.  A good idea typically
takes far less than one percent of the effort to produce and sell a useful
product.  Though new from a patenting perspective, I think most ideas that
get through the patent office probably were in the minds of lots of people
who simply failed to act.

Something else to consider is that patents on CF in particular are very
difficult to come by in the US. Successful applications usually are based
on some other feature of the invention, like "high efficiency."

I am not an attorney or patent agent.  I am only attempting to pass on some
basic information, some of which might be wrong or out of date due to the
recent changes in patent law.  If you want to protect your intellectual
property rights you should consult an attorney or patent agent.

Personally, I have given away dozens of ideas here, and have no regrets.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 04:46:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA00583;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:45:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:45:41 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981101074346.007e1100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 07:43:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b261e0da7ca1 [208.228.222.232]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"SOkBF2.0.z8.rV5Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23952
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:04 AM 11/1/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>At 12:53 AM 11/1/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>>I have some innovative CF ideas I want to talk about. I don't think that I
>>will have the resources to do this all on my own. So I'll just post it here
>>in my next message and it will be up to you guys to determine its' worth and
>>originality and help me put it together by the one year patent disclosure
>>time limit or it will become public domain? This way though, we'll all be
>>able to contribute with refinements. Has something like this been tried
>>before? I trust every one understands and respects proper Consideration and
>>Mutual Ascent concepts and rights? Is this a good idea guys? If it turns out
>>to be a good one and it just goes by it may be a while before I can put
>>another one together. Any comments? Anybody interested?
>>

>Professional serious discussion of ideas for CF (and other free energy)
>experiments and devices is what this list is all about.  Of late, due to a
>short term lack of experimental results, one would think the list is for
>"pop" discussion of political philosophy, SETI, global warming, polar
>melting, Y2K, etc.  (Yes, I'm guilty of getting off topic too!)  How
>refreshing to get back on topic.  If you read the vortex archives you will
>find dozens or even hundreds of CF ideas, methods, devices, experiments,
>etc. posted.

    There is NOT a lack of experimental results.  Those who are
serious DO NOT publish on vortex, but in peer-eviewed journals,
and in the internation proceedings (ICCF7), and this year also
in the IECEC-98 and the ANS meeting proceedings which may
be harder to obtain.

    The fact that some do not do the experiments correctly,
or do not show scientific diligence, may cloud the matter on
vortex, but have no impact to the serious workers in the field.

    Suggestion:  Get the ICCF-7 Proceedings. 
   Get the last two years of Fusion Technology.
   These are a serious beginning for anyone seriously
interested in this field.

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 06:34:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19569;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:33:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:33:28 -0800
Message-ID: <001001be05a4$78a4e340$4d50ddcf craig>
Reply-To: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:32:35 -0600
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 GAA19552
Resent-Message-ID: <"mULtb1.0.hn4.t47Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23953
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>***{I also found the plot to be a bit odd. Most radiotelescope signal
>graphs that I have seen plot time on the horizontal axis and signal
>amplitude on the vertical, but on this one the vertical axis showed
>military style zulu times (i.e., Greenwich mean) increasing in the down
>direction, and signal amplitude on the horizontal axis, increasing as we
>move to the right. If that interpretation is correct, then the "waterfall"
>indicates that the signal rose from zero to some peak amplitude, and was at
>that peak when the plot was cut off (at the bottom). The reason for doing
>it that way, I suppose, is so that you can show a continuous graph for a
>long period of time, by simply rolling down the page, for page after page.
>If the time scale had gone from left to right, the graph would have run off
>of the paper. --Mitchell Jones}***


Mitch, he had his radio in SCAN mode; moving, very roughly from memory, from 1.2Ghz to 1.5Ghz. The signal increased as the frequency centered.

Also, here's something from the SETI Institute. In their original anomaly from ARICEBO, the signal DID die when they moved the receiver off-target -- the first time. You can read that story here:

http://www.seti-inst.edu/phoenix/ao-news.html

Hasta,

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 06:38:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20542;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:35:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:35:43 -0800
Message-ID: <363C7930.2AED ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 07:07:28 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: atech ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
References: <1.5.4.32.19981101055338.00e69be8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2TZeN.0.q05.-67Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23954
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 1, 1998

Dennis,

Hefner & Swartz gives you good advice. Tailor your direction after some
readings/reflection/consultations of protecting you ideas for financial
gains. If you are seeking a free exchange of ideas, it depends if you
and other individuals are of similar minds to, or have other unrevealed
motives/goals. You may start to be afflicted with suspicions. How you
handle personaL dilemmas is up to you alone. 

 > I have some innovative CF ideas I want to talk about. I don't think
>that I will have the resources to do this all on my own. So I'll just >post it here in my next message and it will be up to you guys to >determine its' worth and originality and help me put it together by the >one year patent disclosure time limit or it 

will become public domain? >This way though, we'll all be able to contribute with refinements. Has >something like this been tried before? I trust every one understands >and respects proper Consideration and Mutual Ascent concepts and >rights? Is this a g

ood idea guys? If it turns out
>to be a good one and it just goes by it may be a while before I can >put another one together. Any comments? Anybody interested?

First you must determine if your ideas are really innovative, original,
or of any worth. These can be tricky contentions. Others may think
otherwise.

You make your own judgement on trust, respect, and other good stuff on
ideas and disclosures. Other people will have their own judgements on
those values. Whether the twain shall meet is what you must determine,
not everybody else. There are laws to protect what you consider a
proprietary new idea that opens the door to control and prosperity. Just
have the money prepared to implement the laws. Equal justice for equal
money. Remember justice is blind anyway. Gets farther and farther from
the pursuit of science doesn't it? Or was the pursuit 'pure' in the
firs5 place? 

-AK-

ps: I do sleep on occasion and interests wander.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 09:35:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04259;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:33:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:33:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981101174044.00e1a784 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: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 12:40:44 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI - aliens?
Resent-Message-ID: <"eFY1q.0.T21.vj9Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23955
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 03:53 AM 11/1/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>But if there is indeed something in the outer solar system...who built
>>it?
>
>***{Not us. If I should ever meet them, I plan to ask for asylum. (Don't
>expect a smiley here: I ain't jokin'.) --Mitchell Jones}***


Avoid aliens at all costs. Don't even let them see you. It's against the law
to talk to aliens. NASA is supposed to deal with them by law because of
possible contagians. Some aliens are good. Most aliens have no soul matrix -
yes this is an undesirable condition. ;)

Here's what Whitney Streiber's Greys are like:

>     GREYS - Small neo-sauroid race, very prolific and
>intelligent.  May be the 'brains' or 'intellect' of the serpent
>race, whereas the larger 'Reptoids' allegedly act as the PHYSICAL
>overlords and thus are of a higher 'ranking' than the Greys.  The
>Greys are reportedly very predatory and insensitive to humans,
>and like other reptilian entities they allegedly 'feed' off of
>human fluids by rubbing the 'protein formula' on their bodies,
>which is then absorbed into the skin, and like snakes the 'waste'
>is excreted back through the skin.  The Greys range from 3 1/2 to
>4 1/2 ft. tall on the average, with skin colors ranging from
>grayish white to grayish blue to grayish green.  Aside from
>feeding off of human proteins and fluids, they also allegedly
>feed off the 'life energy', 'vital essence' or 'soul energy' of
>human as do other reptilian species.  This is why those humans
>seen working with the Greys (implanted drones, whether willingly
>or unwillingly) have appeared 'lifeless' and emotionless to the
>witnesses who observed them.  The Greys are allegedly EXTREMELY
>deceitful and although they act on 'logic', to them it is
>'logical' to use extremely complex forms of deception to bring
>about their goals.  They are the most commonly observed 'alien'
>entity during UFO encounters (Draconian).


It's a good time to learn self defense. I carry a 6' hardwood walking stick
with me at all times for exercise as I do errands. I like to spin it -
possible field effect generator? How and where do I put the coils and magnets?

Master Tsai has an interesting self defense video course (1-800-281-4450
customer service) with fast effective results. Based on knowledge of
pressure points. 2 tapes $40.00. Martial arts schools are good for fitness
and health. Get the Master Tsai tapes for real and effective self defense
with a quick learning curve.

Some things makes the brain and will difficult to take over with mind
control; and, makes the 'meat' unpalatable to a Reptilian tastes. 

We have to bite the bullet and deal with this. This is probably accurate:

http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 10:13:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15848;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:12:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:12:59 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981101182004.00e3f234 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: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:20:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
Resent-Message-ID: <"k0gTP3.0.Yt3.hIAFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23956
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 02:04 AM 11/1/98 -0900, you wrote:

>Professional serious discussion of ideas for CF (and other free energy)
>experiments and devices is what this list is all about.  Of late, due to a
>short term lack of experimental results, one would think the list is for
>"pop" discussion of political philosophy, SETI, global warming, polar
>melting, Y2K, etc.  (Yes, I'm guilty of getting off topic too!)  How
>refreshing to get back on topic.  If you read the vortex archives you will
>find dozens or even hundreds of CF ideas, methods, devices, experiments,
>etc. posted.

Original marketable good innovation? Sometimes if it's not patentable, there
is hesitation on attempting to use the idea in a product.

>Though this is a private newslist, it is a public forum - the archives are
>available to anyone on the www.  There is no unusual "Consideration and
>Mutual Ascent"  

These are legal terms about contracts that everyone should know about. They
should be universal cultural traits that goes without saying.

here with regard to patentable material or trade secrets,
>as far as I know.  Posting of ideas here is a form of publication, so
>copyright laws may be applicable.   Publication of patentable material
>places it in public domain in many countries, eliminating your right to
>obtain a patent in those countries, and as you say, starts the one year
>clock here.  However, if you don't plan to give away ideas it is not good
>to post them because to protect you the posting needs to contain sufficient
>information to be a "reduction to practice."

If everyone understood and practiced Consideration and Mutual Ascent I
wouldn't hesitate. It's really no big deal for me to come up with
innovation, but Akira said something about not throwing them away. I think I
have the details defined and the concept clear.

>Also of interest may be the fact that general ideas, theories, and
>mathematical theorems are not patentable.  A patent on the function of a CF
>device would be a utility patent (not a design or plant patent). What is
>eligible for a utility patent in the US is a device or method which is
>reduced to practice and meats additional criteria.  Reduction to practice
>in the US involves either (1) building the device or testing a method, or
>(2) producing  detailed drawings and a description of the device or method
>sufficient for one skilled in the art to make and use the invention, e.g.
>filing a patent application, less claims.   The additional criteria are
>utility, novelty, and unobviousness.  The invention must function in a
>unique manner to produce a useful result.  The result must be something new
>and unexpected, different from what is already known publically, unobvious
>to people skilled in the art, thus producing unexpected or far superior
>results.  Only the true inventor(s) may apply for a patent.  For example,
>companies can prepare patent applications and own part or all rights to the
>patent, but the filing must name only the true inventor(s) as applicant(s)
>or the patent is invalid.

Yes, I have one so far. Unfortunately, they haven't put the figure image up yet.

http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=USD0352971__  

We're establishing manufacturing now.

>Many people get the notion that they can have an "idea", quickly and easily
>patent it, and sell the idea for royalties and get rich.  This is not
>really how things tend to work.  The patent is mainly a tool to protect you
>from competition when you manufacture and sell your product.  It is nothing
>but a license to sue those who infringe on your invention.  To sue, you
>typically have to be already making a profit on *something* or otherwise
>have a lot of capital and spare time.   Also, without a specific agreement,
>there is no protection until your patent issues.  A good idea typically
>takes far less than one percent of the effort to produce and sell a useful
>product.  Though new from a patenting perspective, I think most ideas that
>get through the patent office probably were in the minds of lots of people
>who simply failed to act.

I just thought of this yesterday. It was like a profound vision that I felt
quite exhilerated about. Yes, I think it was that 'Eureka' moment. It was
great. I got a good feeling about this design. It's a from out off left
field sort of a surprise?

>Something else to consider is that patents on CF in particular are very
>difficult to come by in the US. Successful applications usually are based
>on some other feature of the invention, like "high efficiency."

Why the patentability difficulty? The powers that be that may be causing
this suppression, if it isn't some legitimate interferance, can't possibly
have a clue as to the state of things now. Who gives 50% - 50% odds that the
repressive acts these fools are committing now will eventually result in
global catastrophy AND they don't have any awareness of the matter
whatsoever! They probably don't even have underground city room reservations
the fools!

This is a complete CF power system that runs longer (wild optimistic guess:
4500 - 6000 Hrs.) than anything else and outputs consistant, steady power
(wild optimistic guess: 10 - 15 Watts).

>I am not an attorney or patent agent.  I am only attempting to pass on some
>basic information, some of which might be wrong or out of date due to the
>recent changes in patent law.  If you want to protect your intellectual
>property rights you should consult an attorney or patent agent.

One of our clients is an old college buddy. First a patent examiner, now a
patent attorney. I draw patent figures for him.

>Personally, I have given away dozens of ideas here, and have no regrets.

Yes, but I was thinking maybe there are other projects in the works that I
wouldn't want to hinder. Maybe Akira and then Jed might take a look at the
idea first to see if it is unique as far as their experience. I should go
through the CF literature Akira was cool enough to send, but asking is more
expedient and if it's been done, I won't be wasting time with a search right
now. Letting these two guys see the design will cover 90%, at least, of all
that material. All in a few minutes time! If it passes that test, going
through the research would be more warrented and interesting.

Or I could just proceed in confidentiality but that's no fun and I got
plenty of other things to work on. One problem is the uncertainty from
reports of system overload and runaway power output. Intense sudden flashes
of light stories are a concern also. I should just take this seriously and
do the proper research and homework, but then you guys will be wondering
what's up with the announcement. And I wouldn't mind if components were
worked on by knowledgeable and enthusiastic Vo members. But then a backer
may be less inclined with design being discussed here. Perhaps a working
project based list for those contributing effort to the project. The
archives would be released when the product is safely on it's way. Is there
an encoded, secure list server? Can we post PGP encoded project messages? As
above, encoded messages would be released while the project selfpropels
business wise. We could buy parts and contribute time but once the concept
is developed, working well and functions as promised, we need someone who
will say that they are capable and prepared to properly finance and market
the idea. Giving the idea away here may not help CF. After the tenant
association litigation assistance, the toy product manufacturing phase
planning, catch up on the Autocad applications programming, ande a new 3D
drawing to do, I could put some time on CF. Sort of keep it on a mid-burner
and work on it when conditions are such that I can accomplish alot on
development in an enjoyable manner with seemingly no effort.

I hope we get to a solution, I really don't want to put this on delay.

Best Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 10:28:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21303;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:25:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:25:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981101183306.00e1a828 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: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:33:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
Resent-Message-ID: <"A2ysN2.0.nC5.eUAFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23957
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 07:43 AM 11/1/98 -0500, you wrote:

>    There is NOT a lack of experimental results.  Those who are
>serious DO NOT publish on vortex, but in peer-eviewed journals,
>and in the internation proceedings (ICCF7), and this year also
>in the IECEC-98 and the ANS meeting proceedings which may
>be harder to obtain.

I never thought of this but it would be a real kick if I could get a paper
accepted! If this passes muster I'll try. Thanks for the advice

Best Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 10:57:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32005;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:56:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:56:40 -0800
Message-ID: <363CB65C.5CB9 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 11:28:28 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
References: <1.5.4.32.19981101182004.00e3f234 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YTj7w.0.xp7.exAFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23958
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 1, 1998

Dennis,

I take it that you were taking an Archimedian Bath at the time of the
Eureka! moment?

It's good to have a buddy that is a patent attorney. Talk to him first
about disclosing your ideas to people. You do not know whether they were
taking similar baths recently or claim to later on.

Delay is a necessary part of proper preparation. You don't want to take
a bath later on do you?

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 13:29:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14797;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:28:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:28:49 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26276e9c45c [208.228.222.169]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 12:33:56 -0900
To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: I'll just start postin'?
Resent-Message-ID: <"l0GMJ.0.7d3.GADFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23959
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:28 AM 11/1/98, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
>November 1, 1998
>
>Dennis,
>
>I take it that you were taking an Archimedian Bath at the time of the
>Eureka! moment?
>
>It's good to have a buddy that is a patent attorney. Talk to him first
>about disclosing your ideas to people. You do not know whether they were
>taking similar baths recently or claim to later on.
>
>Delay is a necessary part of proper preparation. You don't want to take
>a bath later on do you?
>
>-AK-

Dennis,

This advice is the very best and should remain foremost inyour mind.  Take
your time. Do the job right.  Especially in patent applications, especially
if time is of the essence, you can't easily go back and correct
non-typographical flaws in the technical description.  You might have to
file a continuance, or possibly abandon your original application and start
over.

You seem very confused about how to proceed.  You really need professional
help.  I may now see why, in part, you seem so confused.  The patent issued
to you appears to be a design patent for a toy.  Design patents protect
only a very specific design.  They do not afford the broad coverage of a
utility patent.  On the other hand, the requirements to obtain one are
minimal, as are the fees.  Obtaining a utility patent is a whole different
ball game.  I know this because I obtained one pro se. (US Pat. 5,130,983)
The burden of proof of utility, novelty, and unobviousness is significant.

If you want to maximize your chances of getting a utility patent for a
"cold fusion" device you should have performance data showing exactly how
well the device performed in testing.  The same goes for obtaining
investors.  Generally speaking investors are looking to invest in a
*product*.  They are especially *not* looking to invest in research ideas,
especially from amateurs.  The likelyhood of an amateur obtaining money for
"cold fusion" R&D is very small, and rightly so.  An investor has to either
be generously gift giving or insanely gullible to "invest" in amateur cold
fusion enthusiasts with nothing but ideas, IMHO.

Having seen the comings and goings in the "free energy" field for a while,
seeing people looking for R&D money raises several red flags in my mind and
many others:

(1) What kind of *businessman* looks for external R&D funds based only on
some kind of nebulous description of some ideas?

(2) To be generous, it should be assumed the solicitor is a neophyte who
expects to get rich quick based only on a few good ideas.  What kind of
investment is a neophyte?

(3) If the solicitor is not a neophyte, then suspicion of motive is
resonable, based upon the long history of boondoggles and frauds in free
energy.  It may not be a case of fraud or bad business practice, then again
it may.  The risk/reward ratio is probably very high.  This subject is
nothing new - the archives are full of discussion of this subject.

I think it is safe to say there is no commercially offered self sustaining
free energy product in practical use today.  Generally speaking, R&D in
free energy is a way to spend your money, not make money.  It is IMHO a
noble but most likely financially unrewarding pursuit.

Good luck with your research.  You will find lots of technical advice from
a wide range of fields available here if you need it.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 13:47:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22729;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:44:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:44:54 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:44:52 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: pop-culture CF reference?    :)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981101134051.14891A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"SlNu82.0.3Z5.MPDFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23960
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


As the kid's video is playing in the background, I hear:


  "Do you people still use fossil fuels, or have you discovered crystallic
   fusion?"      - Buzz Lightyear, TOY STORY





((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov  1 15:02:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14306;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:01:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:01:10 -0800
Message-ID: <363CE930.6F8B earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 16:05:20 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  10.31.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1WNq.0.RV3.sWEFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23961
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 10.28.98
  Date:   Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:43:44 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

> >
> >I read this over and over and all I see is a large number of assumptions
> >that, I believe, have little to do with the real physics of a real
> >system.
>
> It would be useful if you could be more specific.  You make it sound
> like a "large number of assumptions" are being made, when in fact only
> four basic ideas are used:
>
> 1. At T=0, entropy achieves its absolute minimum.
>
> 2. It is required that no latent heat be present.
>
> 3. T=0 conditions are maintained in the bulk.
>
> 4. Periodic order be present and maintained in the bulk.
>
> The rest of the discussion involves application of known physical
> results that follow from these assumptions.

OK!  There are some of your assumptions out in the open.  You make some
other ones further along that should each be noted carefully, such as
the energy involved in binding 4He to a specific point location in the
lattice. How do you know that number, and why is it so easy to get rid
of 23 MeV of nuclear excitation, but so hard to dump 1 mV from the
very same ion band state?   I detect something fishy at that point.

Well, I sense that this all comes down to how you deal with the
"separation" coordinate which I gather is what I have called the
"internal" coordinate of the deuteron.  Just to get our feet on solid
ground, let me review some text-book nuclear physics with regard to the
deuteron.  It consists of a proton and a neutron bound by about 2.225
MeV in what is primarily a S-state except for a small admixture of
D-state.  The nucleon spins are aligned so the total angular momentum is
J=1.  Now you can construct a simple model wave function using a
square-well potential and adjust radius and depth to get the proper
binding energy, and, if you like, you can use other observations to fix
the radius and thus the depth of that potential.  I don't know what you
have done to model the interaction, but you insist you have done
something legit.

Its the next step where I am beginning to get a very uneasy feeling
about what you have done, and you seem reluctant to lay it on the line.
If I read you correctly, you are asserting that there is a periodicity
for the nuclear (strong) interaction as well as for the electrostatic
interaction.  That is to say the potential (which I describe above as
a square well) is modulo the unit cell spacing of the Pd lattice.
That is to say we have not a single square well but rather an infinite
array of squarewells. I believe I have heard the term "muffin tin"
potential applied to similar problems.  Is that what we are talking
about here?

If I am on the right track should we not examine the physics that
underlies the creation of such a potential?  I think there is a very big
assumption here that you did not include in your list.

Let's start with the deuteron ion-band states that have occupied us up
to this point.  The deuteron moves in a lattice of Pd with bound
electrons, 
which form fixed charge centers at locations defined by the lattice
spacing.  The deuteron, as a charged particle interacts with those
charge centers ,and that interaction is periodic because the charge
centers are identical and located in a regular array. You have, more or
less, dealt with the problem of the possibility of binding deuterons
into this lattice by assumming that all available lattice sites are
already full.  Thus full loading of the lattice is an assumed
requirement for getting any deuterons into the ion band state which is
"unbound" in the same sense that a conduction election is unbound.

Now how can we get the analogous behavior for the strong interaction
potential?  What makes the potential periodic rather than singular?
It is not obvious to me what you could have in mind, perhaps because
I don't think in terms of periodic potential just existing in empty
space without some sort of objects to serve as sources.

Let's put a deuteron into the ion band state so it's occupying with
equal probability each of unit cells of the lattice.  Are you asserting
that the separation coordinate can be r or r + R or r + 2R or r + 3R
or r + 4R or ...   r + NR for any N?  I see that as being equivalent
to saying that the neutron can be at any lattice site independent
of where the proton is.  That is to say you have removed the correlation
in position between the proton and the neutron and pretended that
there is no energy expended to do that.  I'd say that is an assumption
you forgot to list.

What I feel you are overlooking is the fact that the lattice of Pd and
bound electrons cannot serve the same role for the strong interaction
as it does for the coulomb interaction.  If you try that in any real
sense you would find those neutrons (which are essentially free) getting
confused as to what system they belong to.  In the real world  free
neutrons bind rather indiscriminantly to any avialable nucleus.  The
Pd would capture them!  They remain free of the Pd only so long as
they are correlated to the protons and BOUND.  Binding is the
significant physical fact that you have brushed aside.  Bloch
wavefunctions are totally inappropriate nonsense for the description of
deuterons. Of course if you assume something silly you can get some
rather silly
results.

>
> >Isn't it also possible that you are simply
> >constructing some idealized system in which you overlook some rather
> >significant complicating aspects of the problem that we can be rather
> >sure influence what will happen in the real world?
>
> Of the four assumptions, assumption 1 is the zeroeth law of
> thermodynamics;  while 3 and 4, which are required to maintain a T=0
> state, also hold rigorously when a finite gap exists between the ground
> and first excited states and thermal energy is not introduced that
> excites the system into its first excited state.  Assumption 2 is the
> only postulate that need not hold.  But it certainly is a reasonable
> assumption for many situations.
>
> >> >Now you want to describe a nuclear reaction process within
> >> >the context of some theory -- say deuteron ion band states
> >> >in a Pd lattice.   That's fine with me, but let's not cheat.
> >> >Let's bring the nuclear wave functions back into the picture
> >> >right from the beginning, so we can tell what's true and not
> >> >true about this system.
> >>
> >> There are magnetic anisotropies associated with orientation that may
> >> very well be important in triggering potential reactions.
> >>
> >
> >Here I must ask whether you have included said magnetic anisotropies in
> >the problem or are you just blowing smoke?  I note the word "may".
>
> The reaction requires a coupling between two intial spin 1 state
> deuterons and a spin 0 4He final state.  In the absence of magnetic
> impurities in the Pd host, in the idealization of an ordered, infinite
> crystal, at T=0, each spin magnetic quantum number state -1,0, and 1 has
> associated with it a nuclear band state; and each of these bands is
> equally occupied.  For this reason, there actually is complete order at
> T=0, and overlap with the 4He final state occurs.  The important point
> about anisotropy comes in, however, because only in a finite crystal at
> finite temperature does energy release to the environment become an
> important issue.  In this context, there is a subtlety that may or may
> not seem relevant to you: the process of getting the 4He out of the
> lattice.  In particular, for energy to be released, at T=0, coherent
> charge redistribution to the boundaries must occur.  This leads to a
> build up of charge that potentially can result in crack formation and a
> breakdown of periodic order.  At finite temperature, a similar charge
> redistribution can occur, but coupled to this process are important
> lattice vibrational processes that may disrupt bulk periodic order.  In
> both scenarios, it is important (for the process to be self-sustaining)
> that the 4He be eliminated from the bulk (and potentially from the
> surface region).  The significance associated with magnetic
> potential anisotropies enters in two ways: 1. Either through the
> application of external fields, or 2. Through coupling to the electron
> spin density ("contact field") at the crystal boundaries.  In
> particular, in an optimal situation it is desired that 4He be
> dispelled.  To achieve this, it is desired that the z-component of the
> magnetic field in directions perpendicular to the surface vanish.
> Scenarios that accomplish this (either through the contact field or
> through externally applied fields) potentially provide useful triggering
> mechanisms for achieving the reaction.
>
> >If you will admit that the deuterons enter the lattice in a state of
> >disorder, perhaps we can discuss how realistic it is to suggest that
> >they arrive in an ordered state when cooled to T=0 and will do so
> >in a finite period of time.
>
> The disorder occurs in the surface region.  In the bulk region, the
> bonding and energetics of the situation require that this not be the
> case.
>

No the disorder exists in the electrolyte that feeds deuterons into the
lattice.  The disorder persists because we really don't have the lattice
at T=0.  Of course on paper you can assume the order needed for your
theory, but you can't go into the laboratory and achieve that ordering
without some rather heroic proceedures.  Perhaps that is what separates
me from your theoretical musings.  I know what it actually takes to
achieve nuclear ordering.  You just assume it happens as the normal
condition at T=0.  What I wish to point out is that getting close to T=0
doe not imply that you get close to the ordering you assume.  So while a
T=0 approximation may be reasonable for some aspects of the problem,it
is not so reasonable when it comes to other things, such as the nuclear
ordering.  You can soak your PdD lattice in liquid helium for a long
time and still find that it's disordered.  Until you can cite chapter
and verse for real physical observations of the order you assume it
remains just speculation.  I don't call that a theory of anything.




> Technically, there really are 2x Ncell coordinates for each deuteron.
> Each proton may occupy Ncell locations.  Each deuteron may occupy Ncell
> locations.  (Ncell is the number of unit cells in the solid.)
>
> >It is, however, useful to regroup and define a deuteron center-of-mass
> >position vector, leaving one other that I have been calling "internal"
> >to the deuteron.  Do you agree with me up to that point?
>
> "I agree" in the following sense: each deuteron center-of-mass position
> is defined modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  However, we go a step
> further that  you have not considered: each deuteron "internal" (we use
> the term "separation") coordinate is also defined modulo a Bravais
> lattice vector.
>

There you said it.  Of course I have not considered the deuteron
internal wave fucntion to be defined with respect to a coordinate that
is modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  I cannot construct a real physical
systems that would provide such a potential to any order of
approximation.  It is totally absurb.  No wonder I get a little flip now
and then.

> Where I say "modulo a Bravais lattice vector" above, I am also saying
> "Bloch Function."  In other words, both the nuclear wave function (which
> is associated with the "internal coordinate") and the electrostatic wave
> function (which is associated with the center of mass coordinate) are
> "Bloch Functions," not just the (electrostatic) wave function associated
> with the deuteron center of mass.
>

This is the problem with your theory.  You don't understand what a bound
system is all about.  2.225 MeV of binding energy does not go away (even
approximately) at T=0.  23.5 MeV of binding energy does not go away
(even approximately) at T=0. You can't lose them in translations modula
the lattice spacing because there is no lattice.  You got confused as to
what makes the lattice with respect to the coulomb interaction and then
invented an analogous one for the strong part of the potential.  Get a
grip on reality!

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 15:37:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03263;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981101233433.00e4e108 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: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 18:34:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: pop-culture CF reference?    :)
Resent-Message-ID: <"YdpqD3.0.ro.A1FFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23962
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Bill and all other sentient beings;

First I'd like to thank you Bill for having patience and putting up with my
silliness at times. I read more than enough and get a little scared even at
how things have been allowed to go on autopilot for so long that we have
what we have today. Jerry must have got fed up because he threw me off
Keelynet so I definitely think you are the better man, Bill! You missed an
idea about masschord that you may have found interesting, so there you go,
Jerry! I will make greater efforts to maintain self control when I'm
clicking at the address book in the future.

I was wondering about the public disclosure issue for our planned group
discussions for a CF design. Is it possible to with hold public posting of
the project communications until the coast is clear so to speak? It would be
better to structure a relaxed environment with time constraints a low
priority. Other than the deadlines for the ICCF conference paper of course.

An alternative would be to use encoded PGP message protocall. We'd post the
key at an appropriate time. Just something to think about because we can
talk about stuff for now that would not disclose concepts. When we've done
more background research and are of a good confidence level, I'll bring up
this public disclosure issue to you again. Let us know if you have any
thoughts about this in the mean time though.

Best Regards;
Dennis



At 01:44 PM 11/1/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>As the kid's video is playing in the background, I hear:
>
>
>  "Do you people still use fossil fuels, or have you discovered crystallic
>   fusion?"      - Buzz Lightyear, TOY STORY
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 17:33:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27438;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:33:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:33:12 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: Fredrik Barth <chaopsyc list.uvm.edu>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 17:33:20 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7609.1018.18389192 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Second Order FFT?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"aOrMB.0.ei6.OlGFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23963
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fredrik,

  Can you, or anyone, steer me towards the "how to" of implementing a
2nd order DFT/FFT? It seems simple, but I want to be for sure.

Thanx,
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 17:39:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA30609;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:38:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:38:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199811020137.TAA09333 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:36:34 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI - aliens?
Resent-Message-ID: <"KhauW3.0.zT7.AqGFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23964
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi;
>
>
>At 03:53 AM 11/1/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>>But if there is indeed something in the outer solar system...who built
>>>it?
>>
>>***{Not us. If I should ever meet them, I plan to ask for asylum. (Don't
>>expect a smiley here: I ain't jokin'.) --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>Avoid aliens at all costs. Don't even let them see you. It's against the law
>to talk to aliens. NASA is supposed to deal with them by law because of
>possible contagians. Some aliens are good. Most aliens have no soul matrix -
>yes this is an undesirable condition. ;)
>
>Here's what Whitney Streiber's Greys are like:
>
>>     GREYS - Small neo-sauroid race, very prolific and
>>intelligent.  May be the 'brains' or 'intellect' of the serpent
>>race, whereas the larger 'Reptoids' allegedly act as the PHYSICAL
>>overlords and thus are of a higher 'ranking' than the Greys.  The
>>Greys are reportedly very predatory and insensitive to humans,
>>and like other reptilian entities they allegedly 'feed' off of
>>human fluids by rubbing the 'protein formula' on their bodies,
>>which is then absorbed into the skin, and like snakes the 'waste'
>>is excreted back through the skin.  The Greys range from 3 1/2 to
>>4 1/2 ft. tall on the average, with skin colors ranging from
>>grayish white to grayish blue to grayish green.  Aside from
>>feeding off of human proteins and fluids, they also allegedly
>>feed off the 'life energy', 'vital essence' or 'soul energy' of
>>human as do other reptilian species.  This is why those humans
>>seen working with the Greys (implanted drones, whether willingly
>>or unwillingly) have appeared 'lifeless' and emotionless to the
>>witnesses who observed them.  The Greys are allegedly EXTREMELY
>>deceitful and although they act on 'logic', to them it is
>>'logical' to use extremely complex forms of deception to bring
>>about their goals.  They are the most commonly observed 'alien'
>>entity during UFO encounters (Draconian).
>
>
>It's a good time to learn self defense. I carry a 6' hardwood walking stick
>with me at all times for exercise as I do errands. I like to spin it -
>possible field effect generator? How and where do I put the coils and magnets?
>
>Master Tsai has an interesting self defense video course (1-800-281-4450
>customer service) with fast effective results. Based on knowledge of
>pressure points. 2 tapes $40.00. Martial arts schools are good for fitness
>and health. Get the Master Tsai tapes for real and effective self defense
>with a quick learning curve.
>
>Some things makes the brain and will difficult to take over with mind
>control; and, makes the 'meat' unpalatable to a Reptilian tastes.
>
>We have to bite the bullet and deal with this. This is probably accurate:
>
>http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt
>
>
>Dennis
>
>
>Tall Ships
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

***{Hi, Dennis. I assume that most of the above is tongue-in-cheek, but it
is hard to be sure, so, for the record: (1) I consider it *absolutely
certain*, due to statistical and evolutionary considerations, that we are
not alone. (2) I consider it *likely* that Earth has been visited numerous
times by extraterrestrial spacecraft. (3) I consider it *possible* that
such events have occurred during the memory of the living. (4) *If* (3) is
true, then I consider it highly likely that the U.S. government, and
probably many other governments, are attempting to cover up that fact. (5)
Given (3) and (4), we simply cannot know very much about the nature of the
visitors, or their preferences or capabilities, short of direct, personal
encounters. We can't believe most of what we read about this subject in the
tabloid press, because it is palpably obvious that most of the published
accounts are by certifiable nutters. Thus when I make a statement such as I
impulsively made above--i.e., that I would seek asylum if I encountered an
ET alien--please do not assume that I believe the nonsense that the
tabloids spew forth on this subject. I was merely fantasizing when I
indicated that I would consider an encounter with humanoid aliens from an
advanced civilization to be an incredible opportunity. The reason for the
fantasy is that, in my view, Earth is, quite literally, *the Planet of the
Apes*. I consider the present state of mankind to be only slightly removed
from savagery, and would relish the opportunity to leap a few centuries
forward into a better world. After all, it is clear from history that, on
average, as man has advanced technologically, he has also advanced
culturally and morally. How, then, could an alien civilization advanced far
beyond our own fail to be a better place? Granted, it might not be, but the
odds would be highly favorable. Result: I would sign on as a dishwasher in
an alien starship in a heartbeat, just for the adventure and the
opportunity to learn that would go with the position. This is, of course,
merely an idle fantasy, since the chance that I will ever be offered such
an opportunity is vanishingly small. (But not nearly so small as the chance
that I would pass up the opportunity if it were offered!) --Mitchell
Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 18:23:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16171;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:22:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:22:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102102455.00a99e70 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:24:55 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: More about alleged SETI hit
In-Reply-To: <199811010821.CAA00873 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZqmKY.0.Zy3.aTHFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23965
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:20 1/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote :-

>***{Yup. And 99% of the electronic circuitry and software that is involved
>is working sight unseen, and may have embedded hardware and/or software
>that the Project Phoenix members do not suspect. (See below.) --Mitchell
>Jones}***

The project Phoenix people built virtually everything they use from
the ground up - An entire container full of high speed dedicated
electronics which they take with them around the world wherever they
go.  I am sure that they wrote all their own software also.  It
is very general purpose stuff stuff and obviously works because they
can give it a test signal, and check it on satellites, spacecraft
(eg pioneer), etc.

>...it is
>obvious how Project Phoenix and similar activities would be dealt with:
>since governments control the radiotelescopes, it would be a simple matter
>to have secret hardware and/or software installed which, when a SETI
>project asked for the receiver to be moved to see if a signal would go
>away, would simply not move it or else would feed a copy of the signal back
>to the observers while the receiver (or dish, if appropriate) was being
>moved.

Gosh are you paranoid!  It would be an INCREDIBLY impossible matter
to have "secret hardware and/or software installed" since all the
hardware and software of importance is installed and operated by
the visiting scientists.  We physically climb up into the focus
of the dish and install the detector for the frequency we want to
use.  We manually fill up the cryostat with liquid nitrogen if it
is a low temperature low-noise type.  The reciever is plugged
directly into a commercial rack mounted mixer, etc, etc.  If
something doesn't work, we get in there with a CRO and fix the
problem.  If (or rather when) the program crashes, we check through
the source code to find the bug.

When we command the reciever to be moved, we can hear the motors
running and see the dish moving.  If it doesn't do what we want or
expect we have to fix it ourselves or have it fixed.

There are no government or any other type of officials around at
any time, never mind at 2am in the morning.

>That way, no SETI hits would ever be verified on a government
>controlled radiotelescope. And, so far, none have been.

Wake up man, you watch too many moovies.  There is no such thing
as "the government".  There are only individual people holding
temporary positions of office and trying to do their job as best
they can and rather imperfectly at that.  Besides Parkes is in
Australia, Jodrell bank is in the UK, etc.  Do you think *your*
little government can control what goes on in the entire world?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 18:23:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16216;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:22:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:22:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102102459.00a9c900 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:24:59 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Comments from Paul Dore re SETI hit
In-Reply-To: <199810312000.OAA25127 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"b2aSd2.0.Fz3.dTHFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23966
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 14:59 31/10/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{There was apparently a typo in the original message, which said 1.5
>meters. Thus when I pulled it off of
>www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/verified.html and posted it here,
>that is what it said. Since then, it has apparently been corrected. This is
>a matter of some importance, ...

I think so to.  But not for the reason you give, but because there is
almost no excuse for such a "typo" as you euphemistically call it.
I can't imagine someone copying such a long message by "typing" it in
when modern devices have copy and paste - which cannot make such a
mistake.  I think this was a deliberate modification of the one number.
It may have been done as a result of a correction message from the
originator, but in that case I would hope to see the correction
message complete, rather than have the original message obviously
tampered with!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 21:17:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA30561;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:16:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:16:01 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102052323.00e2fdc4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:23:23 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Project - Q1 Thermoelectric converter
Resent-Message-ID: <"OrBRQ2.0.RT7.G0KFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23967
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Trying to evaluate the worthyness of a design:

Is there a thermoelectric converter design that is optimal for CF type heat
to power conversion? Are many of the experimental CF systems out there to
the point of heat to power conversion, or do they optimize CF parameters for
heat output?

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 21:35:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03411;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:34:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:34:55 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199811020534.XAA09806 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: Second Order FFT?
In-Reply-To: <yam7609.1018.18389192 mail.earthlink.net> from Chuck Davis at "Nov 1, 98 05:33:20 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:34:54 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UUpVm2.0.9r._HKFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23968
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Fredrik,
>   Can you, or anyone, steer me towards the "how to" of implementing a
> 2nd order DFT/FFT? It seems simple, but I want to be for sure.

I don't even know what a 2nd order DFT is, but here is a DFT using the old
sines and cosines method.

The first variable is "number" which is the number of samples in your
base frequency.  The results are printed out in integer harmonics.

Rather than supply a set of test values, I have a sythesis routine
generate some test values, in which you can edit the amplitudes
and phase angles to see if the DFT correctly extracts them.

The von Hann window is for when your sample period is not related to
the fundamental frequency period.  It basically zeros the beginning
and end samples and smoothly expands toward the middle.  If you run
it with and without the von Hann window, you will see the effect, which
is to smoosh out the frequency energy into the neighbor harmonics a bit.



number=51
half=INT(number/2-.5)
cirstep=2*PI/number

REM von hann window
DIM w(number)
FOR j=1 TO number
  w(j) = 0.5-0.5*COS(2*PI*(j-1)/(number-1))
NEXT j

REM waveform synthesis -- remove von hann factor w(j) for exact result
DIM f(number)
FOR j=1 TO  number
  f(j)=(5.5*SIN(cirstep*(j-1)+2)+.33*SIN(cirstep*(j-1)*6+.4))*w(j)
NEXT j

GOSUB fourier

REM printout routine
PRINT "Harmonic #","Amplitude","Phase Angle"
FOR j=1 TO half
  IF a(j)>=.00001 THEN
    PRINT j,2*a(j),b(j)*180/PI
  ENDIF
NEXT j
KEYGET a%
CLOSEW #1
END

REM fourier analysis
PROCEDURE fourier
  DIM a(half),b(half)
  fracstep=2/number
  FOR i=1 TO half
    s=0
    c=0
    FOR j=1 TO number
      guts=cirstep*i*(j-1)
      s=s+f(j)*SIN(guts)
      c=c+f(j)*COS(guts)
    NEXT j
    s=s*fracstep
    c=c*fracstep
    a(i)=SQR(s*s+c*c)
    IF s=0 THEN
      b(i)=PI/2*SGN(c)
    ELSE
      b(i)=ATN(c/s)
      IF s<0 THEN b(i)=b(i)+PI
      IF b(i)<0 THEN b(i)=b(i)+PI+PI
    ENDIF
  NEXT i
RETURN


-- 
 - 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  Sun Nov  1 22:23:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA17069;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:21:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:21:35 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102062809.00e28fd0 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 01:28:09 -0500
To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: The Eureka moment (wsa Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gbz9M2.0.aA4.kzKFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23969
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 11:28 AM 11/1/98 -0800, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
>November 1, 1998
>
>Dennis,
>
>I take it that you were taking an Archimedian Bath at the time of the
>Eureka! moment?

No, with me, it doesn't have any thing to do with surroundings. I have heard
of and experienced white noise from a shower providing a chaotic source from
where ideas sometimes takes shape. I should take more of them come to think
of it. The 'Eureka' moment to me is a gift from higher energy dimensions. I
live with the following habits naturally. Over time from general curiosity,
one casually loads various data and materials during one's travels because
of interest and a general feeling that the subject in hand relates to the
current project bank (all current working projects at hand). I usually say,
I got a feeling this will be important later and if I don't act know, it
will be gone and I won't be able to get it later. Which really is the case
most of the time. Most often I buy books this way.

In the case of CF, monatomic theory study over several years time, gave me
the understanding and confidence to at least think I have a model of how CF
functions. With this, I wanted to test some ideas to see if the new theory
holds up. I was looking through a chemistry book on another matter when I
reached the palladium page and noticed "absorbs 1000 times it's own volume
in hydrogen" I thought, this looks like CF but I know this is an old book. I
thought this would be something to try. So sometime later, I remembered that
I wanted to see if there was palladium black sold on the internet. I came
across a page that looked familiar. I saw Jed Rothwell's name on it. So I
searched and saw that they already tried palladium black 4 years ago. Bummed
out, I kind of dwelled on it because I put time into it and was previously
exhilerated about the idea. All the things I was studying for quite a while
out of CF curiosity just sort of swam around and around. I was disappointed
someone already tried what I thought was cool and unique. Then the stuff in
my mind started to 'precipitate'. First I thought, gee that's interesting.
Then I thought, could this be something. More stuff in my mind slowly
settled into place. I thought that idea is pretty good there. Then I
realized, it looks like something is half here! More things fell into place
effortlessly and perfectly. The excitement really is building strongly. I
start pacing and circling the room. Woe buddy! This looks like it could
really work! I'm jumping around, spinning the walking stick. Yes! This has
got to be something! Everything fits together, everything required was there
and they found there own way! I can't believe I came up with this! I had no
idea about anything like this a few hours ago! Wow, yahoo, EUREKA!!! Turn on
stereo dance wildly until you can calm down and stop being so happy and stop
that laughing - your by yourself and the neighbors are going to think your
nuts! Again! ;)


>It's good to have a buddy that is a patent attorney. Talk to him first
>about disclosing your ideas to people. You do not know whether they were
>taking similar baths recently or claim to later on.

OK, will do tomorrow.

>Delay is a necessary part of proper preparation. You don't want to take
>a bath later on do you?

I appreciate your advice and thank you. I need to calm down more at this stage.


Best Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 22:42:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23117;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:04 -0800
Message-Id: <199811020639.AAA12866 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:38:19 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: More about alleged SETI hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3jcgh2.0.7f5.4FLFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23970
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 03:20 1/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote :-
>
>>***{Yup. And 99% of the electronic circuitry and software that is involved
>>is working sight unseen, and may have embedded hardware and/or software
>>that the Project Phoenix members do not suspect. (See below.) --Mitchell
>>Jones}***
>
>The project Phoenix people built virtually everything they use from
>the ground up

***{They didn't build the telescope, or the machinery that moves the
receiver around to position it properly over the focal point, or the
electronics that controls the positioning, or the signal pathways that
bring the data from the receiver down to the monitoring station, or most of
the control equipment that is in the monitoring station. That is built into
the telescope itself, and offers lots of opportunities for the placement of
"black boxes." --Mitchell Jones}***

- An entire container full of high speed dedicated
>electronics which they take with them around the world wherever they
>go.

***{I did not say that the "black box," if it exists, is embedded in the
equipment of the Project Phoenix personnel, though I would not discount
that possibility without evidence. It was just a few years ago that the
Inslaw scandal broke, when it was discovered that the banking software of a
private vendor had been secretly modified by government spooks, who
illegally inserted a "trapdoor" so that they could snoop about in the
private accounts of any bank around the world that used the software. As a
former systems programmer, I can tell you flatly that a knowledgeable
person can place black-box type code in just about any program, and thereby
cause it to appear to behave one way to the user, while it is in reality
doing something quite different. --Mitchell Jones}***

      I am sure that they wrote all their own software also.  It
>is very general purpose stuff stuff and obviously works because they
>can give it a test signal, and check it on satellites, spacecraft
>(eg pioneer), etc.

***{Yes, of course. You are "sure" because you choose to trust the
government and to believe that the system works. That makes you one of the
optimists I was talking about just yesterday, when in another post I said
the following:

"As a matter of interest, I see no way that we will ever have clear-cut
"proof" one way or the other vis-a-vis this story--not in our lifetimes, at
any rate. That is one of the consequences of living in a world where people
worship governments as if they were gods, trust them implicitly, and grant
them dictatorial powers. Even if Paul Dore and the fellow on Guernsey stand
up tomorrow and declare that this is a hoax, there will be no way for
outsiders to decide whether they are telling the truth or have succumbed to
threats. If our government were a constitutionally limited government, of
course, such a possibility would be ridiculous. Unfortunately, it escaped
from its constitutional restraints many, many years ago. As a result the
pessimists have one view, the optimists have another, and there is never
any closure. The debate about extraterrestrials just goes on, and on, and
on.As a matter of interest, I see no way that we will ever have clear-cut
"proof" one way or the other vis-a-vis this story--not in our lifetimes, at
any rate. That is one of the consequences of living in a world where people
worship governments as if they were gods, trust them implicitly, and grant
them dictatorial powers. Even if Paul Dore and the fellow on Guernsey stand
up tomorrow and declare that this is a hoax, there will be no way for
outsiders to decide whether they are telling the truth or have succumbed to
threats. If our government were a constitutionally limited government, of
course, such a possibility would be ridiculous. Unfortunately, it escaped
from its constitutional restraints many, many years ago. As a result the
pessimists have one view, the optimists have another, and there is never
any closure. The debate about extraterrestrials just goes on, and on, and
on."

Bottom line: we know for a fact that our government has in the past engaged
in precisely the kinds of activities that I have been talking about, and it
follows that they may have done so here. You apparently do not want to
believe that, but it is a fact nonetheless.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>...it is
>>obvious how Project Phoenix and similar activities would be dealt with:
>>since governments control the radiotelescopes, it would be a simple matter
>>to have secret hardware and/or software installed which, when a SETI
>>project asked for the receiver to be moved to see if a signal would go
>>away, would simply not move it or else would feed a copy of the signal back
>>to the observers while the receiver (or dish, if appropriate) was being
>>moved.
>
>Gosh are you paranoid!

***{You call it paranoia; I call it justifiable distrust. In any case, you
know nothing about me, and your speculations about my mental
characteristics are out of place here. The issue between us is how, from a
scientific perspective, the contradiction between the claims of Paul Dore
and those of Project Phoenix, are to be explained. Specifically: Paul Dore
says the 1.4 gigahertz signal from EQ Pegasi goes away when the dish is
moved off of the coordinates; the Project Phoenix people reported
otherwise. It would be an incredible coincidence if they were not talking
about the same signal, and if the signal *is* the same, how are we to
explain the contradiction? If you think you have the answer, then I urge
you to step forward and lay it on us. --Mitchell Jones}***

It would be an INCREDIBLY impossible matter
>to have "secret hardware and/or software installed" since all the
>hardware and software of importance is installed and operated by
>the visiting scientists.

***{You say "of importance," thereby indirectly conceding that some of the
software is *not* installed and operated by them. Moreover, "installed and
operated by the visiting scientists" is not the same as written by them.
Thus your claim that no "black box" could be buried in their code appears
to be simply a leap of faith. Nevertheless, it seems pointless for us to
continue arguing about my suspicions: they are a matter of judgment. As
such, they are not subject to verbal proof or disproof. I would have to fly
down to Arecibo and go over the entire system with a crack team of experts
before I would be convinced that nothing is amiss. Since that obviously
ain't gonna happen, I think you would make better use of your time by
trying to explain to me and to the other paranoids in the audience how you
think the  contradiction between the results of Paul Dore and the Project
Phoenix people came about. --Mitchell Jones}***

 We physically climb up into the focus
>of the dish and install the detector for the frequency we want to
>use.  We manually fill up the cryostat with liquid nitrogen if it
>is a low temperature low-noise type.  The reciever is plugged
>directly into a commercial rack mounted mixer, etc, etc.  If
>something doesn't work, we get in there with a CRO and fix the
>problem.  If (or rather when) the program crashes, we check through
>the source code to find the bug.

***{If the Project Phoenix people actually have the source code for all the
programs they are using, it would remain possible that the compiler has
been modified to insert black ops code into the object module. Or there
could be a hard-wired black box in the system somewhere. Whatever the
details, the logic seems inescapable: either the receiver did not move on
the night when the Phoenix personnel were trying to verify the SETI hit, or
else a false signal was fed into the receiver. The reason I say that is
simple: it is not plausible that Paul Dore in England, K.F. Benton on
Guernsey, and, most recently, Jay Oka in Tokyo, are making this all up. The
signal is there, it is not due to local, land-based interference, and it
has been there for too long to be coming from a geosynchronous satellite.
The only explanation that makes sense to me at the moment is that it is
coming from an alien transmitter somewhere along the line of sight from
earth to EQ Pegasi. If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>When we command the reciever to be moved, we can hear the motors
>running and see the dish moving.  If it doesn't do what we want or
>expect we have to fix it ourselves or have it fixed.

***{Perhaps it is *possible* for Project Phoenix personnel to listen to the
motors running and see the dish moving, but it isn't reasonable to claim
that the observers do so on every verification movement. There was
certainly no indication that this was done when the Phoenix team rejected
the EQ Pegasi hit, based on their account of the events of that night. [See
http://www.seti-inst.edu/phoenix/ao-news.html.] --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>There are no government or any other type of officials around at
>any time, never mind at 2am in the morning.
>
>>That way, no SETI hits would ever be verified on a government
>>controlled radiotelescope. And, so far, none have been.
>
>Wake up man, you watch too many moovies.

***{I have no interest in cows. :-)  --MJ}***

There is no such thing
>as "the government".  There are only individual people holding
>temporary positions of office and trying to do their job as best
>they can and rather imperfectly at that.  Besides Parkes is in
>Australia, Jodrell bank is in the UK, etc.  Do you think *your*
>little government can control what goes on in the entire world?

***{As I have indicated in other posts, governments tend to cooperate to
cover up matters which they agree ought to be kept from the public. In a
world where people worship governments as if they are gods, the existence
of a still greater power would be something they would not want revealed.
--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 22:43:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23156;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:07 -0800
Message-Id: <199811020639.AAA12869 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:38:22 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: SETI Hit in Japan
Resent-Message-ID: <"s5vIo3.0.jf5.6FLFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23971
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{To doubters: read 'em and weep! --Mitchell Jones}***

*************************************
To whom it may concern:

I found your site from reading a post you made to rec.radio.amateur
regarding signals at 1450Mhz. Most interesting. I am involved with
microwave point-to-point communications and I noticed a message from
another amateur who also works stations in the 23 cm band. I have also
maintained an interest in amateur radio astronomy and have a 2 meter
hydrogen line telescope that I use occasionally. What I did was as follows:
connect the hydrogen line telescope feedhorn to a microwave range spectrum
analyzer board in my PC and with this setup I gathered the data you see
plotted in the first inclosed jpeg. I was highly skeptical of the whole
story about EQ Pegasi especially after reading the business wire story.
However I decided to give it a look. If nothing were found it would be a
very interesting experiment.

On October 31 at about 17:30 UTC (November 1st, 2:30 local) I set the
telescope to the coordinates of EQ Pegasi, RA 23 31 52, Dec +19 56 15 (the
yellow "x" on the star map in the second image). I also tuned to the
frequency around 1453.827 Mhz as was described. I did not see signal. I
looked higher in frequency and still did not see signal. I then searched
lower and found a carrier-like signal at about 1452.187 Mhz. I recorded the
graph you see. The X axis represents time, the Y axis represents frequency.
It is the "waterfall" display of the spectrum analyzer program I used.
During the time of observation, in the image you'll see the signal (the
diagonal line) shifted down in frequency by nearly 200Hz! That would
explain why I couldn't pick the signal up at 1453, the signal itself is
getting lower. I hope this may be of some service to those that may want to
monitor this signal

Best regards,

Jay Oka - JA1TR - Tokyo
*************************************

***{The above was reposted from
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/japan.html, and the charts
may be examined at that location. Also of interest are Paul Dore's photos
of the black sedan with government plates that  has been shadowing him
since his identity was revealed. (Paranoids take note!) --Mitchell
Jones}***




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 22:43:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23203;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:40:11 -0800
Message-Id: <199811020639.AAA12863 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:38:18 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Comments from Paul Dore re SETI hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"u0RoB.0.Pg5.BFLFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23972
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 14:59 31/10/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>***{There was apparently a typo in the original message, which said 1.5
>>meters. Thus when I pulled it off of
>>www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/verified.html and posted it here,
>>that is what it said. Since then, it has apparently been corrected. This is
>>a matter of some importance, ...
>
>I think so to.  But not for the reason you give, but because there is
>almost no excuse for such a "typo" as you euphemistically call it.
>I can't imagine someone copying such a long message by "typing" it in
>when modern devices have copy and paste - which cannot make such a
>mistake.  I think this was a deliberate modification of the one number.

***{I assume that the error was in the original message, presumably from
K.F. Benton. It then got posted on the website by using something such as
"copy and paste," just as you said. Later, when K.F. Benton noticed the
error, he apparently sent out a correction, and that was the basis for the
later change at the website. I see nothing sinister about it. Typos are
simply part of reality, whether we like it or not. --Mitchell Jones}***

>It may have been done as a result of a correction message from the
>originator, but in that case I would hope to see the correction
>message complete, rather than have the original message obviously
>tampered with!

***{Tampered smampered: the reality is that you were not the site
administrator. Result: he did it his way rather than your way. It's nothing
to get bent out of shape about. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 23:05:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA02458;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:01:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:01:34 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102070847.00e42a0c 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, 02 Nov 1998 02:08:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI - aliens?
Resent-Message-ID: <"qTHAL2.0.Kc.EZLFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23973
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 08:36 PM 11/1/98 -0600, you wrote:

As a joke, just read the link below once. The tall blonde Swedish looking
aliens are the most civilized. You may have a bigger chance to meet aliens
than you may believe or would want. The odds are in favor of you washing the
plate, then you being served on the plate!

>>http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt

>Result: I would sign on as a dishwasher in
>an alien starship in a heartbeat, just for the adventure and the
>opportunity to learn that would go with the position.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  1 23:24:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA08361;
	Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:23:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:23:26 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2630eeaa8cd [208.228.222.46]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:28:44 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: SETI Hit in Japan
Resent-Message-ID: <"ko5DU2.0.V22.jtLFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23974
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:38 AM 11/2/98, Mitchell Jones quotes Jay Oka - JA1TR - Tokyo:
[snip]
>The X axis represents time, the Y axis represents frequency.
>It is the "waterfall" display of the spectrum analyzer program I used.
>During the time of observation, in the image you'll see the signal (the
>diagonal line) shifted down in frequency by nearly 200Hz! That would
>explain why I couldn't pick the signal up at 1453, the signal itself is
>getting lower. I hope this may be of some service to those that may want to
>monitor this signal
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jay Oka - JA1TR - Tokyo
[snip]

Jumpin' Jehosephat Cap'n - she's a droppin' out o' warp in this sector!  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 00:50:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA20593;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:49:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:49:30 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: John Logajan <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:49:41 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7610.2051.18389192 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199811020534.XAA09806 mirage.skypoint.com>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: Second Order FFT?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"OINAC.0.h15.Q8NFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23975
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 01-Nov-98, John Logajan wrote:
>> Fredrik,
>>   Can you, or anyone, steer me towards the "how to" of implementing a
>> 2nd order DFT/FFT? It seems simple, but I want to be for sure.

>I don't even know what a 2nd order DFT is, but here is a DFT using the old
>sines and cosines method.

>    a(i)=SQR(s*s+c*c)

Thanx, John. The way I understand it, is to take the data in a(i) and do a
second DFT on it (???)

Best,
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 01:59:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29067;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:58:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:58:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102180051.00835b20 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:00:51 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: More about alleged SETI hit
In-Reply-To: <199811020639.AAA12866 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sZ1XK1.0.567.T9OFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23976
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:38 2/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>They didn't build the telescope, or the machinery that moves the
>receiver around to position it properly over the focal point, or the
>electronics that controls the positioning, or the signal pathways that
>bring the data from the receiver down to the monitoring station, or most of
>the control equipment that is in the monitoring station. That is built into
>the telescope itself, and offers lots of opportunities for the placement of
>"black boxes." --Mitchell Jones}***

Ah but the black box has to know just what is going on with the
telescope and what signal is coming through, otherwise it would
kick in at the wrong time and mess up someones astronomy or test
signal.  Then it would get discovered!

>Bottom line: we know for a fact that our government has in the past engaged
>in precisely the kinds of activities that I have been talking about,

I am sure they have done.

>and it follows that they may have done so here.

My argument is that they can only do what is humanly possible.  I
believe what you are suggesting is beyond the capability of humanity.

>...The issue between us is how, from a
>scientific perspective, the contradiction between the claims of Paul Dore
>and those of Project Phoenix, are to be explained. Specifically: Paul Dore
>says the 1.4 gigahertz signal from EQ Pegasi goes away when the dish is
>moved off of the coordinates; the Project Phoenix people reported
>otherwise. It would be an incredible coincidence if they were not talking
>about the same signal, and if the signal *is* the same, how are we to
>explain the contradiction? If you think you have the answer, then I urge
>you to step forward and lay it on us. --Mitchell Jones}***

The answer is obvious.  It was not the same signal.  One was around
1210Mhz, the other is at 1453Mhz.

>...I think you would make better use of your time by
>trying to explain to me and to the other paranoids in the audience how you
>think the  contradiction between the results of Paul Dore and the Project
>Phoenix people came about. --Mitchell Jones}***

There is no contradition.  It was a different signal.

>If the Project Phoenix people actually have the source code for all the
>programs they are using, it would remain possible that the compiler has
>been modified to insert black ops code into the object module.

In which case the compiler has to be able to tell what what the
particular number represents that is to be read from one memory
location and stored into another.  It has to only modify it if
the source code represents a seti detection program, and mustn't
mess with it if it is someones accounting package etc!  Maybe it
has to learn to read and interpret the programmers comments!
Then I guess the programmer can fool it by using innocuous labels
and minimal comments.  How much luck do you have trying to figure
out how someone elses code works even with good comments?  Have
you ever dissasembled code and tried to work out what is going
on?

How would you like the job of providing a black box that could
do that to be sure that it was a seti program, and insert a
"black op" at just the right spot to do the job.  You are a
former systems programer - you should know how easy it would
be!

>Or there could be a hard-wired black box in the system somewhere.

Of course the black box must be able to know that it is a seti
group that is working the telescope, and not someone watching a
pulsar or mapping the intersellar clouds etc.  And it must be
able to tell that it is a real seti signal that is coming through
and not just a test signal that is being used to check the system
out - otherwise someone will go look for the problem and find the
black box!

>Whatever the details, ..

Ah but it is in the details that the devil lies.  The fact is
when you start to look at just what details are necessary it
becomes apparent just how impossible the job would be.  But
you can believe in magic if you wish.

>.. the logic seems inescapable: either the receiver did not move on
>the night when the Phoenix personnel were trying to verify the SETI hit, or
>else a false signal was fed into the receiver.

There is another alternative - that it was a different signal!

>The reason I say that is
>simple: it is not plausible that Paul Dore in England, K.F. Benton on
>Guernsey, and, most recently, Jay Oka in Tokyo, are making this all up. The
>signal is there, it is not due to local, land-based interference, and it
>has been there for too long to be coming from a geosynchronous satellite.
>The only explanation that makes sense to me at the moment is that it is
>coming from an alien transmitter somewhere along the line of sight from
>earth to EQ Pegasi. If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.

Why should I need another explanation.  I am overjoyed with the
obvious one.

>Thus your claim that no "black box" could be buried in their code appears
>to be simply a leap of faith. Nevertheless, it seems pointless for us to
>continue arguing about my suspicions: they are a matter of judgment. As
>such, they are not subject to verbal proof or disproof. I would have to fly
>down to Arecibo and go over the entire system with a crack team of experts
>before I would be convinced that nothing is amiss. Since that obviously
>ain't gonna happen, I think you would make better use of your time by

I don't intend to waste any more of my time.  You are welcome to
believe in an omniscient, omipresent, omipotent government if you
wish.  Why don't you offer your services to put such black boxes
as you describe around the place.  I'm sure they would pay a
fortune for such magic.  And you could actually work against them
by building flaws into them so that they occasionally did the
wrong thing and so got discovered, or occasionally failed to do
the right thing and so let out a secret or two!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 01:59:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29130;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:59:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:59:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102180103.00837b80 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:01:03 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Australian CSIRO to check SETI signal tonight
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RcaPL1.0.-67.b9OFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23977
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A snipit from an email I received locally :-

>Briefing on claimed detection of intelligent extraterrestrial signal
>
>On Wednesday 4 November an amateur astronomer from the UK, Paul Dore, and two
>other (unnamed) astronomers will hold a media conference to announce the
>discovery of repeating artificial signals from a star system called EQ
>Pegasi.
>
>The finding was made by Mr Dore, an electrical engineer employed by Siemens
>Plessey Systems, using a 30-ft diameter satellite dish, on 22 October, and
>reported on the Internet on 26 October. An Internet report claims that two
>unnamed astronomers have now used the 100-m diameter Effelsberg telescope in
>Germany to make observations that confirm the signal
>(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/effsberg.html).
>
>Both professional and amateur SETI groups have ridiculed the claim. For
>example, Professor Nathan Cohen of the University of Boston dismisses it as a
>hoax in a Business-Wire story on 29 October
>(http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/981029/setinow_1.html). This is partly because the
>discoverer did not follow the protocol
>(http://www.seti-inst.edu/post-detection.html) which is followed by all the
>major SETI groups, and which includes a series of checks to prevent false
>alarms. Part of the scepticism is also because of various inconsistencies and
>errors in the original report. Nevertheless, some commentators are taking the
>story fairly seriously.
>
>The ATNF is able to check on these claims with relatively little effort, and
>will spend a short time tonight (Monday 2 November) observing the star EQ Peg
>with the Australia Telescope Compact Array and the Mopra telescope. This
>measurement will help establish whether the claim is a hoax, mis-identified
>interference from a satellite, or conceivably even a genuine detection of an
>intelligent extra-terrestrial signal.
>
>The ATNF has some experience in such work, having collaborated with the
>privately funded, US-based SETI Institute in early 1995 to examine 200
stellar
>systems in the southern sky for possible signals from extraterrestrial
>civilisations.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 02:00:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA30121;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:59:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:59:34 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102100641.00e5e5a4 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, 02 Nov 1998 05:06:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"AvkKH1.0.VM7.6AOFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23978
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 12:33 PM 11/1/98 -0900, you wrote:


>You seem very confused about how to proceed. 

The confusion is from trying to figure out how to invite and include as many
people from Vortex-L as are interested to participate. I was a founder of
the Boston Virtual Reality Group (formerly the Boston Computer Society
Virtual Reality Group). We (my associate V & I) produced 3D solid models for
the annual SIGGRAPH virtual reality group project for 4 out of 5 years in a
row. SIGGRAPH is the biggest computer graphics conferance held annually.
Companies were always there to loan state of the art VR equipment to base
our immersive environments on.  One year, we ran a $150,000.00 SGI Reality
Engine! I want to try the same effort of group participation on projects.


>You really need professional
>help.  I may now see why, in part, you seem so confused.  The patent issued
>to you appears to be a design patent for a toy.  Design patents protect
>only a very specific design.  

My friend who helped me file the patent stuck a whole bunch of stuff in the
wrapper as a surprise I guess. It is a sculpture to me and the copyright is
actually unforced more strongly than patents are, and for a much longer
period. I call the sculpture Concentric Tori tm. It is composed of a large
and a small spring toroid. They will mesh so that the small toroid centers
into the large toroid by a unique new mechanical principal. I am the only
person, I think, who can visualize the mechanism because I had access to the
VR equipment and 3D model I used in drawing the patent figures. Without
visual flyby's of the meshing mechanism, I don't think I would have been
able to understand the working principal. Over 500 people have seen
Concentric Tori and have failed to understand the principal of the toroid
meshing mechanism.

They do not afford the broad coverage of a
>utility patent.  On the other hand, the requirements to obtain one are
>minimal, as are the fees.  Obtaining a utility patent is a whole different
>ball game.  I know this because I obtained one pro se. (US Pat. 5,130,983)
>The burden of proof of utility, novelty, and unobviousness is significant.
>
>If you want to maximize your chances of getting a utility patent for a
>"cold fusion" device you should have performance data showing exactly how
>well the device performed in testing.  The same goes for obtaining
>investors.  Generally speaking investors are looking to invest in a
>*product*.  

I wasn't asking for anything until it worked as promised. I was asking their
opinion of the ideas uniqueness and level of utility.

They are especially *not* looking to invest in research ideas,
>especially from amateurs.  The likelyhood of an amateur obtaining money for
>"cold fusion" R&D is very small, and rightly so.  An investor has to either
>be generously gift giving or insanely gullible to "invest" in amateur cold
>fusion enthusiasts with nothing but ideas, IMHO.

Actually, I've wanted to be an inventor since I was about 8 or 9 years old I
think. It's almost a religious conviction as far as things like 'attaining
one's full human potential and achievement' or 'serving the greatest good
possible' Was that 'creative innovation' or 'innovative creativity'? Right
now V is footing all bills so I can concentrate on creativity. Investments
should kick in soon though.

>Having seen the comings and goings in the "free energy" field for a while,
>seeing people looking for R&D money raises several red flags in my mind and
>many others:
>
>(1) What kind of *businessman* looks for external R&D funds based only on
>some kind of nebulous description of some ideas?

I've got lot's of concurrent projects I could work on and would probably
start paying off alot sooner. Asking those who are more knowledgable in such
matters if I should put time into a project seems sensible to me.


>(2) To be generous, it should be assumed the solicitor is a neophyte who
>expects to get rich quick based only on a few good ideas.  What kind of
>investment is a neophyte?

I think I went through that stage in 1981. I just got the linear two cycle
engine (spring instead of a crankshaft) running after 9 months of designing.
(talk about Eureka moments you should have seen what a fool I made of
myself) I went to Niagra Falls when my girlfriend visited that weekend. I
came back to work that Monday and found all carburation settings changed. I
couldn't start it for the president of the company who was waiting to see it
run. I was consulting a company to build the engine. The company engineer
came to my office and started acting like he was running the project from
that point on. I just realise now that this is exactly what he was supposed
to do. I was confused by the carburator incident and I lost my cool and
left. I came back to Boston with V. The stupidest thing I ever done - Lost
millions of dollars because of it - Will try not to do or be that ever
again. Well I guess I did get V out of it!

>(3) If the solicitor is not a neophyte, then suspicion of motive is
>resonable, based upon the long history of boondoggles and frauds in free
>energy.  It may not be a case of fraud or bad business practice, then again
>it may.  The risk/reward ratio is probably very high.  This subject is
>nothing new - the archives are full of discussion of this subject.
>
>I think it is safe to say there is no commercially offered self sustaining
>free energy product in practical use today.  Generally speaking, R&D in
>free energy is a way to spend your money, not make money.  It is IMHO a
>noble but most likely financially unrewarding pursuit.

I wasn't asking for funds. Myself and anyone interested in helping out would
pay for parts and donate sweat equity. When the prototype ran as promised,
investors would then buy in.

>Good luck with your research.  You will find lots of technical advice from
>a wide range of fields available here if you need it.

Thanks, I'll need it;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 02:05:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA32006;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:05:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:05:05 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <363D764A.68E2 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 01:07:22 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Eureka moment (off topic)
References: <1.5.4.32.19981102062809.00e28fd0 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wKrMN1.0._p7.GFOFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23979
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> 
> Hi;
> 
> At 11:28 AM 11/1/98 -0800, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
November 2, 1998

Dennis,

What you described of reaching the Eureka moment, which has been
partially snipped (too long), is the "Archimedian Bath". Other people
may describe their "Bath" differently and how they reached the same
Eureka moment around the same time or before. If the idea is precious
but you talked about it openly, which is ok too if that is what you want
to do, who is to say it was the first or original? "Me too" doesn't work
in the patenting process.

> No, with me, it doesn't have any thing to do with surroundings. I have >heard of and experienced white noise from a shower providing a chaotic >source from where ideas sometimes takes shape. I should take more of >them come to think of it. The 'Eureka' 

moment to me is a gift from >higher energy dimensions. I live with the following habits naturally. >Over time from general curiosity, one casually loads various data and >materials during one's travels because of interest and a general >feeling that the s

ubject in hand relates to the current project bank >(all current working projects at hand). I usually say, I got a feeling >this will be important later and if I don't act know, it will be gone >and I won't be able to get it later. Which really is the cas

e
> most of the time. Most often I buy books this way.
 <snip>

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 02:20:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA03397;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:19:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:19:21 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03130300b26333f61ecd [12.64.35.17]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:16:09 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ShRTf3.0._q.fSOFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23980
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ok, that web site at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html
is starting to make me a *little* suspicious.

Check out the MIB's cars in the "black sedans" link on that page. They've
done it again. Just like the two identical photos of the signal screen
dumps, here's two identical photos of a black car. What's that supposed to
mean? Each one has a different caption. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me.

One person could easily be responsible for *all* these "e-mails",
screendumps, and everything. I'm going with the "War of the Worlds"
commemoration theory until there's some real confirmation.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 03:14:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA10252;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:19 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021112.FAA15260 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:11:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: SETI Hit in Japan
Resent-Message-ID: <"C1xSR2.0.2W2.FFPFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23982
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 1:38 AM 11/2/98, Mitchell Jones quotes Jay Oka - JA1TR - Tokyo:
>[snip]
>>The X axis represents time, the Y axis represents frequency.
>>It is the "waterfall" display of the spectrum analyzer program I used.
>>During the time of observation, in the image you'll see the signal (the
>>diagonal line) shifted down in frequency by nearly 200Hz! That would
>>explain why I couldn't pick the signal up at 1453, the signal itself is
>>getting lower. I hope this may be of some service to those that may want to
>>monitor this signal
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Jay Oka - JA1TR - Tokyo
>[snip]
>
>Jumpin' Jehosephat Cap'n - she's a droppin' out o' warp in this sector!  8^)
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{It's very hard to take this seriously, isn't it? When I ask myself
whether I believe this thing is going to be verified and people are going
to make the adjustments in worldview which that requires, the answer just
keeps coming back as a screaming no. It ain't gonna happen, regardless of
whether it is true or not. One way or another, the world will continue in
its state of denial, because the alternative is simply too mind-boggling to
contemplate. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 03:14:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA10225;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021112.FAA15257 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:11:35 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI - aliens?
Resent-Message-ID: <"wFwxr1.0.hV2.EFPFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23981
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi;
>
>
>At 08:36 PM 11/1/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>As a joke, just read the link below once. The tall blonde Swedish looking
>aliens are the most civilized. You may have a bigger chance to meet aliens
>than you may believe or would want. The odds are in favor of you washing the
>plate, then you being served on the plate!

***{This line of discussion leads into a morass of conflicting and mostly
unverifiable claims, and I'm sorry I brought it up. We have a factual
issue: trying to determine whether Paul Dore's SETI hit is real. Why don't
we focus on that, and leave the unprovable speculations for another time
and place? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>>http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt

***{I checked out your link. It looks like utter nonsense to me. --MJ}***

>
>>Result: I would sign on as a dishwasher in
>>an alien starship in a heartbeat, just for the adventure and the
>>opportunity to learn that would go with the position.
>
>Regards;
>Dennis
>
>
>Tall Ships
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 03:14:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA10283;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:13:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021112.FAA15263 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:11:38 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO to check SETI signal tonight
Resent-Message-ID: <"77cnP3.0.bW2.HFPFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23983
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>A snipit from an email I received locally :-
>
>>Briefing on claimed detection of intelligent extraterrestrial signal
>>
>>On Wednesday 4 November an amateur astronomer from the UK, Paul Dore, and two
>>other (unnamed) astronomers will hold a media conference to announce the
>>discovery of repeating artificial signals from a star system called EQ
>>Pegasi.
>>
>>The finding was made by Mr Dore, an electrical engineer employed by Siemens
>>Plessey Systems, using a 30-ft diameter satellite dish, on 22 October, and
>>reported on the Internet on 26 October. An Internet report claims that two
>>unnamed astronomers have now used the 100-m diameter Effelsberg telescope in
>>Germany to make observations that confirm the signal
>>(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/effsberg.html).
>>
>>Both professional and amateur SETI groups have ridiculed the claim. For
>>example, Professor Nathan Cohen of the University of Boston dismisses it as a
>>hoax in a Business-Wire story on 29 October
>>(http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/981029/setinow_1.html). This is partly because the
>>discoverer did not follow the protocol
>>(http://www.seti-inst.edu/post-detection.html) which is followed by all the
>>major SETI groups, and which includes a series of checks to prevent false
>>alarms. Part of the scepticism is also because of various inconsistencies and
>>errors in the original report. Nevertheless, some commentators are taking the
>>story fairly seriously.
>>
>>The ATNF is able to check on these claims with relatively little effort, and
>>will spend a short time tonight (Monday 2 November) observing the star EQ Peg
>>with the Australia Telescope Compact Array and the Mopra telescope. This
>>measurement will help establish whether the claim is a hoax, mis-identified
>>interference from a satellite, or conceivably even a genuine detection of an
>>intelligent extra-terrestrial signal.
>>
>>The ATNF has some experience in such work, having collaborated with the
>>privately funded, US-based SETI Institute in early 1995 to examine 200
>stellar
>>systems in the southern sky for possible signals from extraterrestrial
>>civilisations.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

***{I will be very surprised if we get a confirmation, either by CSIRO or
by Efflesberg, regardless of whether the signal is real or not. The reason:
a confirmation would open a Pandora's box of implications that politicians
would rather not deal with. Thus they will find a way to debunk it,
irrespective of the facts. If Paul Dore's SETI hit is proven to be true,
the proof is likely to come from a continued accumulation of confirmations
by amateurs using privately owned equipment, not from government.
--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 04:29:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA29072;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:28:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:28:35 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102123546.00e31e90 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, 02 Nov 1998 07:35:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Project - Q2 Dissociation energy of H2  (Re: The Eureka moment
  (off topic))
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sf-_o1.0.667.pLQFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23984
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:07 AM 11/2/98 -0800, you wrote:

>What you described of reaching the Eureka moment, which has been
>partially snipped (too long), is the "Archimedian Bath". Other people
>may describe their "Bath" differently and how they reached the same
>Eureka moment around the same time or before. If the idea is precious
>but you talked about it openly, which is ok too if that is what you want
>to do, who is to say it was the first or original? "Me too" doesn't work
>in the patenting process.


What might these different "Baths" be like? Does one have to be born of a
particular "Bath" style in order for it to be effective. The idea of varying
creativity lifestyles is interesting. There's probably a scientifically
proven "Bath" style that is most effective?

I only talked about things that were already in books and not patentable
anyways. I haven't said anything about the actual details of the design I
have in mind. Only generalities are what I may have mentioned so far. The
first patented innovation I worked on was in '81.

Question 2: Dissociation Energy of Hydrogen

Can you say if the dissociation energy of hydrogen is 103 cal/gram mole? 

The Black Light Power system looks like a tough act to beat.



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 04:40:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA00631;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:39:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:39:48 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102124715.00e578ec 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, 02 Nov 1998 07:47:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Radio guys: SETI - aliens?
Resent-Message-ID: <"GqLor2.0.n9.KWQFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23985
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 06:11 AM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>***{This line of discussion leads into a morass of conflicting and mostly
>unverifiable claims, and I'm sorry I brought it up. We have a factual
>issue: trying to determine whether Paul Dore's SETI hit is real. Why don't
>we focus on that, and leave the unprovable speculations for another time
>and place? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>>
>>>>http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt
>
>***{I checked out your link. It looks like utter nonsense to me. --MJ}***


It's the only info available. I've seen a few different sites. There all the
same tone. I guess some stuff is just too scary to face.

Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 05:01:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA05559;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:00:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:00:13 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102130717.00e37668 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, 02 Nov 1998 08:07:17 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Arata
Resent-Message-ID: <"teEkm3.0.nM1.TpQFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23986
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I came up with Palladium black fair and square on my own abilities. Arata's
work did confirm. I am almost willing to bet he has not thought of my
application.

Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 07:17:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23170;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:15:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:15:58 -0800
Message-ID: <363DCC32.8826E179 bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:13:54 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: ET Signal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dMV951.0.tf5.joSFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23987
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick,

You are absolutely right to be sceptical since the Geocities web
site seems to be the source of most of this.

If it is a hoax, someone has done a good job covering his tracks.  I
found a Paul Dore web site at:

http://www.web-computing.demon.co.uk/

and as of this writing the counter shows only 792 hits.  So, if this
site is fabricated, word hasn't gotten out about it.

Seems Paul likes football and fishing.  I think I'll send him an
email on the address on the webpage
(fishing web-computing.demon.co.uk ) congratulating him on his
"catch" and see if he responds.

Terry


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 07:34:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28358;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:32:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:32:10 -0800
Message-Id: <363DC53B.26C64EF5 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 16:44:11 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
References: <l03130300b26333f61ecd [12.64.35.17]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mOba92.0.xw6.w1TFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23988
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Ok, that web site at
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html
> is starting to make me a *little* suspicious.
> 
> Check out the MIB's cars in the "black sedans" link on that page. They've
> done it again. Just like the two identical photos of the signal screen
> dumps, here's two identical photos of a black car. What's that supposed to
> mean? Each one has a different caption. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
> twice, shame on me.

It appears the car photos are corrected. one is blackbmw.gif the other bcar2.gif. I noticed the short cast of the BMW un the ground which not normal as the sun does not as high as this time. In UK this could be hardly possible. Actually they resemble more

 to picture taken from a car magazine (plates are not visible on both cars)

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 08:17:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12684;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:14:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:14:28 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:09:41 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Pointless debate with Blue
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021113_MC2-5ECF-6387 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"dfKkR.0.y53.YfTFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23989
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I have not been following the Storms vs. Blue debate. I noticed today that
Blue wrote:

    Only problem is they did not measure the power input during the boiloff!
  They could only estimate it on the basis of infrequently logged
  measurements. 

The boil off with the condenser continued for weeks. Does Blue seriously
assert that they only measured the input power once during week long and month
long runs? He says they didn't have time! During the original boil off
experiments input power was measured with a high-speed oscilloscope and other
instruments. The boil off events lasted 5 to 15 minutes; the oscilloscopes
measure millions of times per minute.

This is not a scientific debate. Storms makes careful assertions basically on
experimental evidence. Blue responds with whatever nonsense pops into his head
at the moment. I do not understand why Rich Murray feels compelled to
broadcast this nonsense over the Internet. Does he know nothing about this
subject? Is he incapable of distinguishing between facts and fiction?

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 08:39:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA22064;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:36:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:36:59 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2639050d52c [208.228.222.126]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:43:02 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Thanks to Murray
Resent-Message-ID: <"FiCT22.0.fO5.g-TFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23990
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I'm grateful to Rich Murray for providing some of the only on topic
material here in weeks.  It is thought provoking, even if half the argument
is from a guy who accepts theory above experimental results.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 08:42:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25311;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:41:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:41:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021640.LAA03753 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate with Blue
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 98 12:38:46 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cpJEv.0.OB6.93UFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23991
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed wrote:

> I do not understand why Rich Murray feels compelled to
>broadcast this nonsense over the Internet. Does he know nothing about this
>subject? Is he incapable of distinguishing between facts and fiction?

Simple answer:   No.

Gene Mallove

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 09:08:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02813;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:06:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:06:01 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26393217eac [208.228.222.107]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:12:09 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"mtLZb1.0.qh.uPUFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23992
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:06 AM 11/2/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>My friend who helped me file the patent stuck a whole bunch of stuff in the
>wrapper as a surprise I guess. It is a sculpture to me and the copyright is
>actually unforced more strongly than patents are, and for a much longer
>period.

You really have a lot of misconceptions in this area.  Neither copyrights
nor patents are enforced by other than the holder. *You* have to enforce.
There is no copyright police force.


>I call the sculpture Concentric Tori tm. It is composed of a large
>and a small spring toroid. They will mesh so that the small toroid centers
>into the large toroid by a unique new mechanical principal. I am the only
>person, I think, who can visualize the mechanism because I had access to the
>VR equipment and 3D model I used in drawing the patent figures. Without
>visual flyby's of the meshing mechanism, I don't think I would have been
>able to understand the working principal. Over 500 people have seen
>Concentric Tori and have failed to understand the principal of the toroid
>meshing mechanism.

Again, a design patent is not on the principle but on a very specific
design, it is on the *appearance* of the design, not on the *principle* of
the design. The contents of the wrapper does not change this.  A design
patent is a very weak patent compared to a utility patent, which covers all
embodiments within the definitions of the claims.  It is the appearance of
your toy which is patented.


[snip]
> Investments
>should kick in soon though.
[snip]

!!!???


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 09:19:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07269;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:17:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:17:42 -0800
Message-ID: <363DEA30.1644 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:21:53 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Rothwell: value of Blue debate  11.2.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cp_BP1.0.Vn1.raUFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23993
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 2, 1998   Hello all,   Jed Rothwell [72240.1256 compuserve.com] has
posted that Dick Blue [blue pilot.msu.edu] in his critical posts 
"responds with whatever nonsence pops into his head".  If this is a fair
and adaquate characterization of Blue's critiques, then how do we
account for the fact that both Ed Storms and Scott Chubb
[chubb ccf.nrl.navy.mil   http://www.angelfire.com/va/schubb/  ], both
articulate, well-informed, and highly active researchers in CANR, have
chosen to spend so many hours writing long, detailed answers in an
on-going civil, public debate with Blue? 

I find Dick Blue to be a very savvy physicist, with knowledge of quantum
theory and decades of hands-on experience in the details of experimental
atomic physics.  Certainly, he has a negative bias.  But he very well
represents the attitudes and questions of mainstream physics, which must
be successfully addressed, if CANR research is ever to receive expanded
funding and attract more researchers.  Ed Storms has sent him some of
his own research reports, which he and I are now reviewing in detail. 
This will generate a new level of detailed point-by-point discussion, in
which any deficiencies in the various players are bound to become
glaringly evident.  If anyone would like to join us in this public
discussion, you may want to ask Ed Storms for the relevant reports
[storms2 ix.netcom.com].  His ICCF-7 paper, "Factors affecting heat
production in a Pons-Fleischmann cell," is at: 

http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/storms/iccf7p1.htm

The hope that the dissemination of successful commercial devices will
force the mainstream scientific acceptance of CANR is surely rather wan
by now.

Rich Murray
Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 09:45:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17254;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:40:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:40:00 -0800
Message-ID: <363DEF62.7920 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:44:02 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  11.2.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-tIp-3.0.RD4.lvUFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23994
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 10.31.98
      Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:20:00 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

To provide an important point of reference, I am including the four
basic assumptions of the theory, as summarized in our last
correspondence.

>>
>> You make it sound
>> like a "large number of assumptions" are being made, when in fact only
>> four basic ideas are used:
>>
>> 1. At T=0, entropy achieves its absolute minimum.
>>
>> 2. It is required that no latent heat be present.
>>
>> 3. T=0 conditions are maintained in the bulk.
>>
>> 4. Periodic order be present and maintained in the bulk.
>>
>> The rest of the discussion involves application of known physical
>> results that follow from these assumptions.
>

Then, you commented:

>OK!  There are some of your assumptions out in the open.  You make some
>other ones further along that should each be noted carefully, such as
>the energy involved in binding 4He to a specific point location in the
>lattice. How do you know that number, and why is it so easy to get rid
>of 23 MeV of nuclear excitation, but so hard to dump 1 mV from the
>very same ion band state?   I detect something fishy at that point.

23 MeV at an isolated point is a large number.  In a coherent, order
preserving transition, it can be less than the minimal amount of energy
required to excite anything.  This fact is at the heart of the physics
associated with the Mossbauer effect.  For example, in a lattice with
more than 10^9 unit cells, a shift of .023 eV per unit cell in the zero
of energy is just about the minimal energy required to excite a
"deuteron"-like phonon (associated with the zero-point motion of the D's
in PdD).  In point of fact, a 1 mV energy transition in such a crystal
will also be coherently absorbed.  Probably what is foreign to you in
this is the impact of coherence as it applies to periodically ordered
systems.

>Well, I sense that this all comes down to how you deal with the
>"separation" coordinate which I gather is what I have called the
>"internal" coordinate of the deuteron.  Just to get our feet on solid
>ground, let me review some text-book nuclear physics with regard to the
>deuteron.  It consists of a proton and a neutron bound by about 2.225
>MeV in what is primarily a S-state except for a small admixture of
>D-state.  The nucleon spins are aligned so the total angular momentum is
>J=1.  Now you can construct a simple model wave function using a
>square-well potential and adjust radius and depth to get the proper
>binding energy, and, if you like, you can use other observations to fix
>the radius and thus the depth of that potential.  I don't know what you
>have done to model the interaction, but you insist you have done
>something legit.

This was unnecessary to include.  We have used a square well based on a
realistic model of 4He.

>Its the next step where I am beginning to get a very uneasy feeling
>about what you have done, and you seem reluctant to lay it on the line.
>If I read you correctly, you are asserting that there is a periodicity
>for the nuclear (strong) interaction as well as for the electrostatic
>interaction.  

This is driven by assumptions 1-4.  It is a new observation.  But once
these four assumptions are made, the theory is self-consistent and
requires that this periodicity be present.  A second point that I don't
think you appreciate is that the result is associated with the
associated nuclear self-interaction in an environment in which order is
preserved.  This is to say, each fraction of a proton-neutron pair is
distributed with equal probability to all unit cells (or equivalently
each nucleon within each proton-neutron pair) is so distributed.  The
result is absolutely rigorous for a T=0 scenario (as a consequence of
the four assumptions).

>That is to say the potential (which I describe above as
>a square well) is modulo the unit cell spacing of the Pd lattice.
>That is to say we have not a single square well but rather an infinite
>array of squarewells. 

Correct

>I believe I have heard the term "muffin tin"
>potential applied to similar problems.  

If "you" like, "you" (and I include the quotes because possibly others
may find the terminology useful) may view the potential in this way.  In
point of fact, this is a gross over-simplification for two reasons:  1. 
the potential, which is really the result of self-interaction, results
from non-local  coupling to coherent processes that preserve order, 2. 
"muffin tin" potentials, which are approximate constructions that used
to be the predominantly used (readily accessible) forms of potential in
solid state physics problems, today serve only as intermediate forms of
potentials that are used in solving self-consistent field problems.

>Is that what we are talking
>about here?
>

As I said, not really--because what we are really talking about is the
nucleon field interacting with itself:  it should be emphasized that the
germane problem actually is "somewhat foreign" from the perception you
have.  The germane problem is the time evolution of the overlap between
an initial state and a final state that includes the effects of
self-interaction, with the proviso that assumptions 1-4 hold.

>If I am on the right track should we not examine the physics that
>underlies the creation of such a potential?  

Yes!  And my last comment alludes to this point.

>I think there is a very big
>assumption here that you did not include in your list.
>

It occurs to me that the "assumption" that you are looking for (which
actually is not an "assumption") is a rule of quantum mechanics:

When overlap occurs between two states, its time evolution defines
interaction.  

In particular, the first derivative of the overlap between two states
defined at a given time defines the interaction matrix element between
the two states.  When this result is applied in the context of the four
assumptions I have listed, the results I have quoted become rigorous.

>Let's start with the deuteron ion-band states that have occupied us up
>to this point.  The deuteron moves in a lattice of Pd with bound
>electrons, 
>which form fixed charge centers at locations defined by the lattice
>spacing.  

The most relevant electron charge (near the Fermi energy) is itinerant
in the sense that it is shared by the entire solid.

>The deuteron, as a charged particle interacts with those
>charge centers ,and that interaction is periodic because the charge
>centers are identical and located in a regular array. You have, more or
>less, dealt with the problem of the possibility of binding deuterons
>into this lattice by assumming that all available lattice sites are
>already full.  Thus full loading of the lattice is an assumed
>requirement for getting any deuterons into the ion band state which is
>"unbound" in the same sense that a conduction election is unbound.


This is essentially correct.

>Now how can we get the analogous behavior for the strong interaction
>potential?  What makes the potential periodic rather than singular?

The overlap rule I cited above, self-interaction, and the manifest
coherence that is necessitated by assumptions 1-4.

>It is not obvious to me what you could have in mind, perhaps because
>I don't think in terms of periodic potential just existing in empty
>space without some sort of objects to serve as sources.

The allowable transitions that are consistent with the interaction rule
defined by overlap and the four assumptions listed above are responsible
for this.  There are "no objects", per se, involved.  There are purely
quantum mechanical effects at work.  These effects are
"self-consistent," however, meaning that the results of the effects are
consistent with the underlying assumptions associated with them.

>
>Let's put a deuteron into the ion band state so it's occupying with
>equal probability each of unit cells of the lattice.  Are you asserting
>that the separation coordinate can be r or r + R or r + 2R or r + 3R
>or r + 4R or ...   r + NR for any N?  I see that as being equivalent
>to saying that the neutron can be at any lattice site independent
>of where the proton is.  

No--this is not correct because it is necessary that Born-Oppenheimer
(BO) separability be maintained in which the proton-neutron
electrostatic wave function is infinitely long-lived.  (BO separability
is required to eliminate the possibility of latent heat.)

>That is to say you have removed the correlation
>in position between the proton and the neutron and pretended that
>there is no energy expended to do that.  

This follows from your observation.  It is not part of the theory.  It
violates BO separability of the proton-neutron electrostatic wave
function from the nuclear wave function.

>I'd say that is an assumption
>you forgot to list.
>

As I said, this is your (incorrect) assertion.

>What I feel you are overlooking is the fact that the lattice of Pd and
>bound electrons cannot serve the same role for the strong interaction
>as it does for the coulomb interaction.  

I did not say this.  I said that the combination of a finite energy gap
(at T=0), and the quantum mechanics (and coherence) of periodic order
make this possible.  In point of fact, as emphasized by Schwinger, the
Coulomb and strong interactions are non-separably linked at T=0.  And
this result is absolutely required in the T=0 limit.  The effects of
periodic order provide a means for extending these effects to finite
temperature.  That such an extension can be made to occur is in fact
well-known from the rules of ordinary conductivity in metals.

>If you try that in any real
>sense you would find those neutrons (which are essentially free) getting
>confused as to what system they belong to.  In the real world  free
>neutrons bind rather indiscriminantly to any avialable nucleus.  The
>Pd would capture them!  They remain free of the Pd only so long as
>they are correlated to the protons and BOUND.  Binding is the
>significant physical fact that you have brushed aside.  

These are entirely your ideas.  In fact, correlation between protons and
neutrons in the various proton-neutrons pairs is required, and to
maintain the situation we have described, the kinds of points you are
mentioning are related to the bosons-in and bosons-out selection rule
(as well as its generalization: that only ground state to ground state
transitions are allowed).

>Bloch wavefunctions are totally inappropriate nonsense for the description
of
>deuterons. Of course if you assume something silly you can get some
>rather silly results.
>

Words like "silly" are inappropriate.  Why not use the word
"non-physical" instead.  Regardless, the "non-physical" results that you
have inferred are the result of your assumptions.

 >> >I must ask whether you have included said magnetic anisotropies in
>> >the problem or are you just blowing smoke?  I note the word "may".
>>
>> The reaction requires a coupling between two intial spin 1 state
>> deuterons and a spin 0 4He final state.  In the absence of magnetic
>> impurities in the Pd host, in the idealization of an ordered, infinite
>> crystal, at T=0, each spin magnetic quantum number state -1,0, and 1 has
>> associated with it a nuclear band state; and each of these bands is
>> equally occupied.  For this reason, there actually is complete order at
>> T=0, and overlap with the 4He final state occurs.  The important point
>> about anisotropy comes in, however, because only in a finite crystal at
>> finite temperature does energy release to the environment become an
>> important issue.  In this context, there is a subtlety that may or may
>> not seem relevant to you: the process of getting the 4He out of the
>> lattice.  In particular, for energy to be released, at T=0, coherent
>> charge redistribution to the boundaries must occur.  This leads to a
>> build up of charge that potentially can result in crack formation and a
>> breakdown of periodic order.  At finite temperature, a similar charge
>> redistribution can occur, but coupled to this process are important
>> lattice vibrational processes that may disrupt bulk periodic order.  In
>> both scenarios, it is important (for the process to be self-sustaining)
>> that the 4He be eliminated from the bulk (and potentially from the
>> surface region).  The significance associated with magnetic
>> potential anisotropies enters in two ways: 1. Either through the
>> application of external fields, or 2. Through coupling to the electron
>> spin density ("contact field") at the crystal boundaries.  In
>> particular, in an optimal situation it is desired that 4He be
>> dispelled.  To achieve this, it is desired that the z-component of the
>> magnetic field in directions perpendicular to the surface vanish.
>> Scenarios that accomplish this (either through the contact field or
>> through externally applied fields) potentially provide useful triggering
>> mechanisms for achieving the reaction.

You seem to have no comment on this.  It is a potentially important
result.

>>
>> The disorder occurs in the surface region.  In the bulk region, the
>> bonding and energetics of the situation require that this not be the
>> case.
>>
>
>No the disorder exists in the electrolyte that feeds deuterons into the
>lattice.  The disorder persists because we really don't have the lattice
>at T=0.  

There is disorder in the electrolyte.  There is also disorder in the
surface region.  There need not be disorder in the bulk.  This has been
known since the late 70's from neutron scattering experiments.

>Of course on paper you can assume the order needed for your
>theory, but you can't go into the laboratory and achieve that ordering
>without some rather heroic proceedures.  

As I said, it has been known since the 70's that it is relatively easy
to achieve order in the bulk.  The article that I referred to by Wicke
and Brodowsky earlier provides references to this.  I suggest you check
it, if you want details concerning what is reasonable and unreasonable
about periodic order in PdD.

>Perhaps that is what separates
>me from your theoretical musings.  I know what it actually takes to
>achieve nuclear ordering.  

The term "musing" is inappropriate.  The theory is based on the known
electronic structure of PdD and the know coherent  effects that are
present in solids.  It is apparent that the idea of nuclear ordering
bothers you. It is required in the low temperature limit of fully-loaded
PdD.  Your background concerning "nucelar ordering" may or may not be
relevant.  My suspicion is that it is not relevant because you seem to
be biased in a way that is contrary to what is known experimentally
about "real" PdD.

>You just assume it happens as the normal
>condition at T=0.  What I wish to point out is that getting close to T=0
>doe not imply that you get close to the ordering you assume.  

Again, as I have noted in the past, loading preparation, and crystal
size are important ingredients in the discussion.  The theory also has a
finite temperature generalization that indicates the essential overlap
conditions have room temperature counter-parts.  As I note above, the
underlying physics associated with coherence that substantiates these
ideas is the phenomenon of conductivity in normal metals and
semi-conductors:  in these materials, conductivity occurs as a finite
temperature manifestation of coherent effects that are present at T=0;
the associated many-body states are well-described by a single many-body
wave function, constructed from non-interacting "electron gas-like" wave
functions in which the dominant scattering occurs between regions of
order and disorder.

>So while a
>T=0 approximation may be reasonable for some aspects of the problem,it
>is not so reasonable when it comes to other things, such as the nuclear
>ordering.  

Crystal size and other factors dictate how well the approximation holds
at finite temperature.

>You can soak your PdD lattice in liquid helium for a long
>time and still find that it's disordered.  Until you can cite chapter
>and verse for real physical observations of the order you assume it
>remains just speculation.  

Not true--this is your assertion;  and it contradicts what is known from
neutron scattering experiments.  (These experiments measure nuclear
spin.)

>I don't call that a theory of anything.

This comment is extraneous and does not belong in a "scientific"
discourse.


>> Technically, there really are 2x Ncell coordinates for each deuteron.
>> Each proton may occupy Ncell locations.  Each deuteron may occupy Ncell
>> locations.  (Ncell is the number of unit cells in the solid.)
>>
>> >It is, however, useful to regroup and define a deuteron center-of-mass
>> >position vector, leaving one other that I have been calling "internal"
>> >to the deuteron.  Do you agree with me up to that point?
>>
>> "I agree" in the following sense: each deuteron center-of-mass position
>> is defined modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  However, we go a step
>> further that  you have not considered: each deuteron "internal" (we use
>> the term "separation") coordinate is also defined modulo a Bravais
>> lattice vector.
>>
>
>There you said it.  Of course I have not considered the deuteron
>internal wave fucntion to be defined with respect to a coordinate that
>is modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  I cannot construct a real physical
>systems that would provide such a potential to any order of
>approximation.  It is totally absurb.  No wonder I get a little flip now
>and then.
>
>> Where I say "modulo a Bravais lattice vector" above, I am also saying
>> "Bloch Function."  In other words, both the nuclear wave function (which
>> is associated with the "internal coordinate") and the electrostatic wave
>> function (which is associated with the center of mass coordinate) are
>> "Bloch Functions," not just the (electrostatic) wave function associated
>> with the deuteron center of mass.
>>
>
>This is the problem with your theory.  You don't understand what a bound
>system is all about.  

I most certainly do!  The key point of confusion seems to be the nature
of the overlap induced, self-interaction and the resulting coherent
interaction.  This  is one point of divergence between us.  (Probably,
there are others.)

>2.225 MeV of binding energy does not go away (even
>approximately) at T=0.  23.5 MeV of binding energy does not go away
>(even approximately) at T=0. You can't lose them in translations modula
>the lattice spacing because there is no lattice.  

There is a "lattice" with boundaries, rigorously defined at T=0 because
the electrostatic and nuclear potentials are non-separable in this
limit. There exist coherent processes that do allow them to be
separable.  These processes must preserve periodic order, as mandated by
the time-evolution of the overlap between initial and final states.

>You got confused as to
>what makes the lattice with respect to the coulomb interaction and then
>invented an analogous one for the strong part of the potential.  

I could equally well say, "you got confused."  But I won't do this. 
There never was any confusion with respect to the coulomb interaction. 
It was found that the minimal energy state of the system has Bloch
symmetry in the wave functions associated with the separation variable. 

In terms of the discussion regarding the strong interaction, the key
point is that minimal separation is required both in the coulomb and
strong potential interactions.  What is probably more important is that
the key point of disagreement is concerned with what constitutes an
interaction potential.  The standard many-body definition involves the
time derivative of the (same time) overlap between initial and final
states.  (This is equivalent to defining the interaction using the
self-energy and Feynman diagrams.)  This  is the generalization of
preconceived notions of what is and is not allowed by Quantum
Mechanics.  In point of fact, once this overlap exists, it goes without
saying that an interaction will occur.  The relevant question is how
long the overlap occurs.  If it occurs for a long time, the energies
involved in the coupling need not be large.  If it occurs for a short
time, the energies involved, by necessity become large.

>Get a
>grip on reality!

I've got one.  In scientific discourse comments like this are
inappropriate.  I am not sure if we are making progress. I would hope
that you will eliminate the polemics from your comments.

Scott Chubb

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:04:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28081;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:02:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:02:35 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:59:25 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: SETI controversy
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"pCW552.0.gs6.wEVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23995
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic. I have
no objection to off-topic discussions, but in this case I expect there are
many Internet discussion groups devoted to this subject and this news in
particular. I think it would make more sense to move the discussion elsewhere,
and report back here from time to time as new developments occur. I am being
prissy about organizing things -- I like to see information pigeonholed
correctly where we can find it.

While I am on the subject, let me say I find it amusing that people believe
the government is suppressing information about extraterrestrial intelligence.
It has no motive! To the contrary, the discovery of extraterrestrials beings
would be an enormous shot in the arm for the military budget, NASA, and big
government science in general. If anything I would expect the government to
perpetrate a hoax. People say the government is suppressing this information
to prevent a panic. That makes no sense. Many citizens already believe in UFOs
already, so why would panic ensue? In the past we faced genuine threats like
the Nazis and communism. The government never downplayed these threats. It
never pooh-poohed polio, cocaine, crime or AIDS. If anything, the government
is somewhat alarmist. The Pentagon still claimed that the Russians were poised
to take over the world in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell and the USSR
collapsed. Russia turned out to be a paper-mache boogy man.

The government can't keep secrets worth a damn anyway. It is terribly
disorganized, and it has no talent for suppressing information. It hasn't
suppressed this news! Here we are talking about it -- where are the Men in
Black? One faction in the government made a half hearted attempt to suppress
cold fusion in 1989 with the ERAB report. But today you can learn all about
cold fusion on the Internet. The Patent Office has fought against cold fusion,
but it fights against all innovations, and CETI showed that you can get a
patent for a cold fusion device with clever legal jujitsu. Some CF scientists
blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents, but it
is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
rationally in their own interests. Many of the lunatic fringe CF and o-u
scientists who claim government and corporate conspiracies are actually kooks
and frauds. Their claims are bullshit and their machines do not exist. They
carry on hysterically and point fingers at imaginary enemies to distract
attention from their own failures.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:12:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32631;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:09:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:09:34 -0800
Message-ID: <363DF64A.134A earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 11:13:30 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Heffner: thanks for debate  11.2.98
References: <v01530500b2639050d52c [208.228.222.126]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-yYjw1.0.nz7.ULVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23996
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 2, 1998   Hi Horace Heffner,  Thanks for the encouragement about
my  efforts to facilitate civil debate between Dick Blue and Ed Storms
and Scott Chubb.  I don't get much response, so I have no idea who is
reading these lengthly discussions.  Dieter Britz sent me a supportive
post a month ago.  I wish Gene Mallove would consider printing the
debates in Infinite Energy.   Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:20:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02893;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:14:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:14:48 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102182103.00e865ec 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, 02 Nov 1998 13:21:03 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  11.2.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wm7Um.0.7j.NQVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23997
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

There is some serious brain work going on here. Could I ask a question? Is
this correct?

Dissociation Energy of Hydrogen gas molecule (H2) = 103 cal./gram mole

Dennis


At 10:44 AM 11/2/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:

>To provide an important point of reference, I am including the four
>basic assumptions of the theory, as summarized in our last
>correspondence.


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:28:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10871;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:26:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:26:31 -0800
Message-ID: <009601be068d$e87527e0$8db4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:23:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2DAhe.0.jf2.NbVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23998
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 <Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com>
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 11:03 AM
Subject: SETI controversy

Jed wrote:


>To: Vortex
>
>I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic. I
have
>no objection to off-topic discussions, but in this case I expect there are
>many Internet discussion groups devoted to this subject and this news in
>particular. I think it would make more sense to move the discussion
elsewhere,
>and report back here from time to time as new developments occur.

Agreed, I'm having a difficult time convincing my Alien friends that this is
a Hoax.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick



>
>- Jed
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:35:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15080;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:33:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:33:05 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021832.MAA25148 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:31:19 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"VclQA1.0.Oh3.WhVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24000
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Rick Monteverde wrote:
>>
>> Ok, that web site at
>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html
>> is starting to make me a *little* suspicious.
>>
>> Check out the MIB's cars in the "black sedans" link on that page. They've
>> done it again. Just like the two identical photos of the signal screen
>> dumps, here's two identical photos of a black car. What's that supposed to
>> mean? Each one has a different caption. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
>> twice, shame on me.
>
>It appears the car photos are corrected.

***{Yes. Last night I too was puzzled by the fact that the same photo
appeared above both captions, but now there are two different photos, as
one would expect. The posting of two photos last night was probably a
simple error at the website, not some sort of arcane "fool me twice"
signaling device. But who knows? Maybe the people posting this material are
*stark raving mad.* Since any hypothesis is apparently preferable to taking
them seriously, we should just assume that they are crazy, right?
--Mitchell Jones}***

one is blackbmw.gif the other bcar2.gif. I noticed the short cast of the
BMW un the ground which not normal as the sun does not as high as this
time. In UK this could be hardly possible.

***{Yes it could. The upper car shows a shadow angle of about 15  degrees
relative to the sides of the photo, but we have no way to determine whether
the sides of the photo are aligned in the vertical direction. The picture
looks grainy, as if the frame has been cropped from a small portion of a
photo taken at a distance. If so, the person who did the cropping may have
oriented the sides to give the car an ordinary appearance--which means: the
way it would appear if it were on level ground. The lower photo, on the
other hand, clearly casts a longer shadow, though it is impossible to
determine the angle because the tip of the shadow has been cropped off.

Nevertheless, there is one aspect of the photo which I find disturbing: the
trees and grass in the background are green. Granted, the shubbery in the
top photo could be evergreen, but the grass in the lower photo isn't, so
how can it be so lush and green? It is November, and the leaves are already
turning in Texas. How then can the grass be lush and green in England,
which is much farther north? Granted, England is warmed by the Gulf Stream,
but surely the climate can't be milder than Texas! What about it, Brits, is
the lower photo plausible, or not?

--Mitchell Jones}***

Actually they resemble more to picture taken from a car magazine (plates
are not visible on both cars)

***{Many places do not require plates on the front, Hamdi. I have no plates
on the front of my own car, as it happens. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>hamdi ucar


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:35:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15035;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:33:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:33:03 -0800
Message-Id: <199811021832.MAA25135 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:31:16 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"yVLMn3.0.jg3.UhVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/23999
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Ok, that web site at
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html
>is starting to make me a *little* suspicious.
>
>Check out the MIB's cars in the "black sedans" link on that page. They've
>done it again. Just like the two identical photos of the signal screen
>dumps, here's two identical photos of a black car. What's that supposed to
>mean? Each one has a different caption. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
>twice, shame on me.

***{I simply don't understand this fixation with being "fooled" or "had."
As I said the other day, neither I nor anyone else posting here, to my
knowledge, has claimed to know for a fact that this alleged SETI hit is
real. We are merely discussing the *possibility* that it is real, so how
can we be"fooled?" Moreover, as I also said earlier, there is no way this
discussion is going to come to a definitive conclusion one way or the other
even if one of the parties stands up and claims that he has perpetrated a
hoax, for the simple and sufficient reason that outsiders (that's us) will
have no way to determine whether he is telling the truth, or has succumbed
to government threats. Like it or not, barring the unlikely possibility
that government owned radiotelescopes begin issuing *confirmations* of Paul
Dore's result, this matter is probably going to end up precisely where it
is now: a subject of endless debate and conjecture, where truth is given
only to those who have good *judgment*, and proof per se is not possible.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>One person could easily be responsible for *all* these "e-mails",
>screendumps, and everything. I'm going with the "War of the Worlds"
>commemoration theory until there's some real confirmation.

***{Your idea that this all comes from the geocities.com website does not
appear to be correct. Paul Dore actually exists. (I did a websearch for
"Paul Dore" through altavista.com, and one of the links was to a website
that shows the same curriculum vitae that is posted on geocities.com.) Thus
if geocities.com is perpetrating a hoax, Paul Dore is going to sue them for
millions, and will win. The overwhelmingly greater probability is thus that
they are getting their information from him, as they say. That would mean
that, if this is a hoax, the hoaxer is probably Paul Dore. But if Paul Dore
is dumb enough to have perpetrated a hoax here, he had better be prepared
to pony up the costs incurred by the various institutions around the world
who are wasting time and money trying to verify his claims, because you can
bet that they are going to sue him to recover those costs. Even worse, by
involving his employer's good name in this episode, he is going to be fired
and his career is going down the toilet. And, beyond that, he may face
criminal charges. All in all, the hoax theory doesn't strike me as very
plausible, though of course it is *possible.* (Maybe someone at
geocities.com is dumb enough to lay themselves open to a ruinous lawsuit,
or maybe Paul Dore is dumb enough to wreck his career and risk a lawsuit or
jail. Stranger things have happened.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 10:54:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26046;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:52:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:52:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102134958.007dcab0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:49:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Corrections to Jed's comments [SETI controversy,cf]
In-Reply-To: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"B6yQ32.0.pM6.TzVFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24001
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



   At 12:59 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>While I am on the subject, let me say I find it amusing that people believe
>the government is suppressing information about extraterrestrial
intelligence.
>It has no motive! To the contrary, the discovery of extraterrestrials beings
>would be an enormous shot in the arm for the military budget, NASA, and big
>government science in general. 

  Irrespective of the existence of extraterrestrial life, intelligent
or otherwise;    Jed is wrong.  
Those interested will read "The McDaniel Report"
http://www.mcdanielreport.com/
available through The McDaniel Report Newsletter, 
1055 W. College Avenue #273, Santa Rosa CA 95401

  Comments on said McDaniel Report:
 "It is impossible to do justice in a few paragraphs 
to this well-produced and well-argued volume." - Arthur C. Clarke 

     "The McDaniel Report was a welcome breath of fresh air. 
Professor McDaniel approaches the problem of artifacts with a 
care and objectivity rarely seen." - Stanton T. Friedman 



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

> One faction in the government made a half hearted attempt to suppress
>cold fusion in 1989 with the ERAB report.

 Jed is wrong in failing to estimate the impact of
the ERAB report.  Those interested should read
the history of this field:

Eugene Mallove "FIRE FROM ICE: Searching for the Truth 
Behind the Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991) 
Note the table on pages 246 through 248 which lists
scores of laboratories who have measured and reported excess 
heat, and in many cases other particles. 


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

>The Patent Office has fought against cold fusion,
>but it fights against all innovations, and CETI showed that you can get a
>patent for a cold fusion device with clever legal jujitsu. 

  It is wrong to fail to fully cite prior art which probably should not
be confused with military arts.


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

>Some CF scientists
>blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents, but it
>is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
>rationally in their own interests.


  Jed is apparently wrong again.  
  Those interested should read the past DOE SBIR solicitations
which explicitly refused to consider cold fusion.  

  
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 11:47:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15616;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:43:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:43:56 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102195047.00e4d39c 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, 02 Nov 1998 14:50:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rzact.0.hp3.xjWFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24002
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:12 AM 11/2/98 -0900, you wrote:

>You really have a lot of misconceptions in this area.  Neither copyrights
>nor patents are enforced by other than the holder. *You* have to enforce.
>There is no copyright police force.

I think they will stop copyright infringement at the border. Patent
infringement they will let through.


>>I call the sculpture Concentric Tori tm. It is composed of a large
>>and a small spring toroid. They will mesh so that the small toroid centers
>>into the large toroid by a unique new mechanical principal. I am the only
>>person, I think, who can visualize the mechanism because I had access to the
>>VR equipment and 3D model I used in drawing the patent figures. Without
>>visual flyby's of the meshing mechanism, I don't think I would have been
>>able to understand the working principal. Over 500 people have seen
>>Concentric Tori and have failed to understand the principal of the toroid
>>meshing mechanism.
>
>Again, a design patent is not on the principle but on a very specific
>design, it is on the *appearance* of the design, not on the *principle* of
>the design. The contents of the wrapper does not change this.

It will interfer with new similar patents.


>  A design
>patent is a very weak patent compared to a utility patent, which covers all
>embodiments within the definitions of the claims.  It is the appearance of
>your toy which is patented.

I challenge you to find a use for the mechanism other than intellectual
visualization . I challenge you to visualize the mechanism.


Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 11:58:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20376;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:56:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:56:13 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:53:17 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Murray's question
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021455_MC2-5E90-94BB compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"7EAZp.0.I-4.SvWFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24003
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Rich Murray writes:

    Jed Rothwell [72240.1256 compuserve.com] has posted that Dick Blue
  [blue pilot.msu.edu] in his critical posts "responds with whatever
  nonsence pops into his head".  If this is a fair and adaquate
  characterization of Blue's critiques, then how do we account for the
  fact that both Ed Storms and Scott Chubb . . .  have chosen to spend so
  many hours writing long, detailed answers in an on-going civil, public
  debate with Blue?

I believe Storms and Chubb are responding in order to educate the public. They
do not expect a coherent response from Blue. Murray asks "is this a fair and
adequate characterization?" of Blue's statement. Then he suggests we judge
this question based on the fact that Storms and Chubb take part in the debate.
I say we should look at the statement directly, we should examine the data
directly, and we should forget who is debating whom. Blue made a simple
assertion. He said that Pons and Fleischmann measured input power only once.
Is that true? Consider the experiments and instruments. Pons and Fleischmann
used instruments capable of measuring input millions of times per minute.
Sometimes the boiling events lasted for weeks. The graphs show thousands of
points in the boiling regime, both during calibration and during actual
boil-off events.


    But he very well represents the attitudes and questions of mainstream
    physics, which must be successfully addressed . . .

No one can successfully address preposterous, imaginary claims. What else does
Blue say? That Pons and Fleischmann used witchcraft? How can we disapprove
such phantasmagoria? It is like trying to prove that UFOs do not exist.


Horace Heffner writes:

    I'm grateful to Rich Murray for providing some of the only on topic
    material here in weeks.

It is not on-topic. It is imaginary. An on-topic discussion would have some
connection with the real world. Blue says there was one reading when in fact
there were millions. Suppose I claimed Pons and Fleischmann generated 100
million watts. My error would be in the same range as Blue's (of approximately
the same order of magnitude). Would anyone say I am making an interesting
on-topic contribution? No, people would say I am crazy. Why is it that when
skeptics are wrong by six orders of magnitude we pat them on the head and say
"How nice! An on-topic contribution!" Whereas when someone who has actually
read literature is wrong by one order of magnitude he is attacked for being
sloppy. Where does this double standard come from?


    It is thought provoking, even if half the argument is from a guy who
    accepts theory above experimental results.

It is not thought-provoking. This is no more thought-provoking than it would
be if I claimed the cell was 400 meters tall and it produced 100 million
watts. Okay, that might provoke some thoughts about *me*, but not about
experiments.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 12:06:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23361;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:04:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:04:05 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b263bf6be65f [208.228.222.107]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:10:04 -0900
To: rmforall earthlink.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Murray: Heffner: thanks for debate  11.2.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"DPup-3.0.mi5.q0XFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24004
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:13 AM 11/2/98, Rich Murray wrote:
>Nov. 2, 1998   Hi Horace Heffner,  Thanks for the encouragement about
>my  efforts to facilitate civil debate between Dick Blue and Ed Storms
>and Scott Chubb.  I don't get much response, so I have no idea who is
>reading these lengthly discussions.  Dieter Britz sent me a supportive
>post a month ago.  I wish Gene Mallove would consider printing the
>debates in Infinite Energy.   Rich Murray

It would be a great thing to eventually have this debate, maybe lightly
edited to a more formal standard by the involved parties, published in one
form or another, even if only on the www.  It may be of historical
significance and is a great overview of the fundamental scientific CF
issues.  Even in present form, it is nice to see the debate free and clear
of amateur noise.  Thanks again for your efforts.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 12:27:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA00229;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:25:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:25:36 -0800
Message-ID: <363E155D.BBEF8635 GroupZ.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 15:26:05 -0500
From: sno <sno GroupZ.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI controversy (off topic)
References: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qNNKk1.0.U3._KXFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24005
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed ... this is the second time you have stated that
the "government cannot keep secrets", which I agree
with...I have stated that I have found that the 
government has not kept it secret, in fact whistle
blowers have stated that aliens exist and the 
government is trying to back engineer alien technology
....the whistle blowers have been and are
attacked as kooks, etc.....however if you go into 
their backgrounds, they are strange kooks, they often
have held high trustworthy positions in government
and corporations...and the only thing they claim is
what I have stated above...they don't claim they were
abducted, hounded by men in black...etc, etc...all they
claim is they have seen alien technology, or papers
that prove the same....if you do some open minded 
research you will find what I have found...there is 
good reason to believe these people....steve



Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
> To: Vortex
> 
> I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic. I have
> no objection to off-topic discussions, but in this case I expect there are
> many Internet discussion groups devoted to this subject and this news in
> particular. I think it would make more sense to move the discussion elsewhere,
> and report back here from time to time as new developments occur. I am being
> prissy about organizing things -- I like to see information pigeonholed
> correctly where we can find it.
> 
> 
> 
> The government can't keep secrets worth a damn anyway. It is terribly
> disorganized, and it has no talent for suppressing information. It hasn't
> suppressed this news! Here we are talking about it -- where are the Men in
> Black? One faction in the government made a half hearted attempt to suppress
> cold fusion in 1989 with the ERAB report. But today you can learn all about
> cold fusion on the Internet. The Patent Office has fought against cold fusion,
> but it fights against all innovations, and CETI showed that you can get a
> patent for a cold fusion device with clever legal jujitsu. Some CF scientists
> blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents, but it
> is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
> rationally in their own interests. Many of the lunatic fringe CF and o-u
> scientists who claim government and corporate conspiracies are actually kooks
> and frauds. Their claims are bullshit and their machines do not exist. They
> carry on hysterically and point fingers at imaginary enemies to distract
> attention from their own failures.
> 
> - Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 12:49:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09729;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:46:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:46:25 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b263c6c83269 [12.72.131.55]>
In-Reply-To: <199811021832.MAA25135 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:43:12 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KI4Ew2.0.vN2.WeXFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24006
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  Your idea that this all comes from the geocities.com website
   >  does not appear to be correct. Paul Dore actually exists.

It looks pretty correct to me. All the information on this story comes from
one (or two) websites on Geocities. How hard is it to make up a bunch of
stuff, a "Paul Dore" (who may or may not actually exist) with some phony
CV, and convert it all to HTML and upload it? This guy can't get anything
right. He shifted his story and accompanying images *several* times on the
SETI list to meet *several* challenges that were posted there, according to
Shostak. He can't even upload the right pictures. He changes the content of
cut and pasted "e-mail" when it's found to have questionable content. The
only "confirmations" are from individuals making claims by e-mail. What
about their identity and credibility?

I can't understand how you think that it's likely that this is real in the
face of a complete lack of any credible evidence that it is, and in the
face of accumulating evidence that it's probably a hoax. The ENTIRE STORY
sources in the one or now maybe two Geocities websites. The only positive
story on this comes form the BBC, which seems to have gotten its
information from the GEOCITIES site. Everything else points to a hoax.
IMHO, there have been zero confirmations of an anomalous signal.

I'd love for this to be real. However so far I've not seen one shred of
credible evidence that it is, but rather a growing list of evidence that
it's a hoax. Too bad.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:08:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15012;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:04:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:04:23 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:01:47 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021603_MC2-5ECA-49CB compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gl-7X3.0.Sg3.MvXFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24009
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I know nothing about radio astronomy, but noticed that Michel Jones says
privately owned antenna larger than one meter are rare. I recall the first
radio astronomy antenna was constructed by a British scientist in his
backyard. Would be possible to modify a large satellite TV receiver for this
purpose? I suppose you would need improved electronics and a tracking
mechanism. Most of these antennas are fixed, but some can be pointed to
different satellites by remote control, so they must have tracking gear. I
have seen some large ones out in the countryside. They may not even make the
big ones anymore, now that the pizza box size ones are available. The last
time I took the train through rural Japan I saw the small ones on practically
every house.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:08:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14506;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:02:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:02:43 -0800
Message-Id: <199811022101.PAA29051 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:00:54 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: More about alleged SETI hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"S4MxX3.0.YY3.otXFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24007
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 01:38 2/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>They didn't build the telescope, or the machinery that moves the
>>receiver around to position it properly over the focal point, or the
>>electronics that controls the positioning, or the signal pathways that
>>bring the data from the receiver down to the monitoring station, or most of
>>the control equipment that is in the monitoring station. That is built into
>>the telescope itself, and offers lots of opportunities for the placement of
>>"black boxes." --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Ah but the black box has to know just what is going on with the
>telescope and what signal is coming through, otherwise it would
>kick in at the wrong time and mess up someones astronomy or test
>signal.  Then it would get discovered!

***{It's not quite that complex: all it would have to do would be recognize
geosynchronous satellites and have the capability to be switched on or off
by means of a remote radio transmission. The former capability would be
necessary so that SETI testing would work, and the latter one would be
necessary so that the black box could be turned off when Project Phoenix
wasn't running the site, or when they were asked to briefly interrupt their
activities to monitor a space probe or a shuttle flight for some reason. I
would expect such black boxes to be installed in all government owned
radiotelescopes for security reasons, even if ET's were not a worry: they
have all kinds of secret satellites up there, and they do not want us peons
to know about them. Thus they would not be willing to trust a group such as
Project Phoenix with one of their multimillion dollar radiotelescopes,
unless they were sure they wouldn't use it to identify the locations of
secret satellites and what not. And once such a black box were in place, it
could be used to make sure any ET signals that might be out there would not
be discovered. The logic would be simple: (1) If Project Phoenix is running
the telescope, turn the black box on. (2) When the black box is on, feed a
copy of the signal from the last set of fixed coordinates back into the
system while the beam is being slewed away from those coordinates, unless a
non-secret geosynchronous satellite would be at that location . (3) If
Project Phoenix is not running the telescope, turn the black box off.
Result: Project Phoenix would never get a SETI hit, precisely as intended.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>Bottom line: we know for a fact that our government has in the past engaged
>>in precisely the kinds of activities that I have been talking about,
>
>I am sure they have done.
>
>>and it follows that they may have done so here.
>
>My argument is that they can only do what is humanly possible.  I
>believe what you are suggesting is beyond the capability of humanity.

***{I  don't see why you say that. Project Phoenix is authorized to use the
Arecibo telescope at specific times, and those who granted the
authorization obviously know what those times are. That knowledge, plus an
appropriate remotely controllable black box, is all they need to ensure
that no SETI hits take place at Arecibo. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>...The issue between us is how, from a
>>scientific perspective, the contradiction between the claims of Paul Dore
>>and those of Project Phoenix, are to be explained. Specifically: Paul Dore
>>says the 1.4 gigahertz signal from EQ Pegasi goes away when the dish is
>>moved off of the coordinates; the Project Phoenix people reported
>>otherwise. It would be an incredible coincidence if they were not talking
>>about the same signal, and if the signal *is* the same, how are we to
>>explain the contradiction? If you think you have the answer, then I urge
>>you to step forward and lay it on us. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>The answer is obvious.  It was not the same signal.  One was around
>1210Mhz, the other is at 1453Mhz.

***{According to Jay Oka, who confirmed Paul Dore and K.F. Benton's SETI
hits using a 2 meter dish in Japan, the signal showed a 200 hertz drift in
one brief observational session, which apparently lasted about 19 minutes.
Thus it would hardly be surprising that the signal might be at 1210 Mhz on
Sep. 17, and at 1453 Mhz on Oct. 22. What would be wildly *improbable,*
however, is that these two signals were not one and the same. The reason:
both had the characteristics of an ET transmission, and both were from EQ
Pegasi. What do you think the odds are on that? According to Carl Sagan [in
*Cosmos*] there are more stars in the visible universe than there are
grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. If we had counted every
tentative SETI hit since the beginning of the project at Arecibo and
selected celestial coordinates at random that number of times, what do you
think the chances are that we would select the EQ Pegasi coordinates twice?
The answer: for practical purposes, the probability of that happening is a
flat zero. Either this whole affair is a hoax perpetrated by a lunatic, or
these two signals were one and the same. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>...I think you would make better use of your time by
>>trying to explain to me and to the other paranoids in the audience how you
>>think the  contradiction between the results of Paul Dore and the Project
>>Phoenix people came about. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>There is no contradition.  It was a different signal.

***{Highly unlikely. See above. --MJ}***

>
>>If the Project Phoenix people actually have the source code for all the
>>programs they are using, it would remain possible that the compiler has
>>been modified to insert black ops code into the object module.
>
>In which case the compiler has to be able to tell what what the
>particular number represents that is to be read from one memory
>location and stored into another.  It has to only modify it if
>the source code represents a seti detection program, and mustn't
>mess with it if it is someones accounting package etc!

***{Again, it is not so difficult as you imply. All it would have to do
would be check the program id. While the black box is probably situated in
the hardware, as discussed above, there is no way to discount the
possibility that it is in the software until we obtain far more information
than we now have. Truth be told, neither one of us even knows whether the
people at Arecibo have the source code of their programs, or whether they
would be able to debug them if they did have it. We are speculating in a
vacuum and wasting our time. You can obviously cobble together a patchwork
of assumptions under which it would be impossible for the black box theory
to be true, but there is no point to such an exercise, because unless we go
to Arecibo with a crack engineering team and tear the place apart, there is
no way to verify that such assumptions are true. --Mitchell Jones}***

Maybe it
>has to learn to read and interpret the programmers comments!
>Then I guess the programmer can fool it by using innocuous labels
>and minimal comments.  How much luck do you have trying to figure
>out how someone elses code works even with good comments?  Have
>you ever dissasembled code and tried to work out what is going
>on?

***{Yup. It ain't easy, and that's a fact. But who said it had to be easy?
In any case, this entire line of discussion is a waste of time. You are
willing to assume, without evidence, that everything that happens at
Arecibo is above board, while I am not. You want to believe in the system,
and are willing to trust the authorities. I wanted to believe in it myself,
in my younger days, but I am 56 years old, and I have seen too much, and
have been disappointed too many times. Disillusionment has  set in, and
there is nothing you can do to rectify that. You have one judgment of the
system, based on your history of experience and thought, and I have a
different judgment. While judgments can be right or wrong, they are based
on the integration of too much material to be usefully argued about in a
group such as this. Such debates are akin to arguing about the proper
assessment of a complex chess position. A master may have one opinion and
an amateur another, but the issue cannot be settled quickly. Verbal proof
will not be forthcoming, and if the position is played out and the master
wins, the amateur will still not be convinced: he will conclude that he
lost because of a tactical error rather than because his judgment was
unsound. Bottom line: we need to argue about facts or logic, and avoid
arguing about matters of judgment. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>How would you like the job of providing a black box that could
>do that to be sure that it was a seti program, and insert a
>"black op" at just the right spot to do the job.  You are a
>former systems programer - you should know how easy it would
>be!

***{As noted previously, it  would be silly to try to identify the program
by means of generalized logic. I would simply check the program-id, and
insert the black box code as a linked subroutine. Yes, actually modifying a
compiler in this way would be difficult, but we would have to assume things
not in evidence in order to conclude that it would be impossible. And even
if we assumed those things, their are other possible ways to accomplish the
same end. (See above.) Thus, to discount those potential alternative
pathways, we would have to assume still other facts not in evidence. And so
on. In your judgment, those assumptions are perfectly reasonable; in my
judgment, they are not. Let that be the end of it. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>Or there could be a hard-wired black box in the system somewhere.
>
>Of course the black box must be able to know that it is a seti
>group that is working the telescope, and not someone watching a
>pulsar or mapping the intersellar clouds etc.  And it must be
>able to tell that it is a real seti signal that is coming through
>and not just a test signal that is being used to check the system
>out - otherwise someone will go look for the problem and find the
>black box!

***{Not a problem. See above. --MJ}***

>
>>Whatever the details, ..
>
>Ah but it is in the details that the devil lies.  The fact is
>when you start to look at just what details are necessary it
>becomes apparent just how impossible the job would be.  But
>you can believe in magic if you wish.

***{You choose to make whatever assumptions are required to support the
notion that everything is above-board at Arecibo; I do not. Result: you
trust, and I doubt. I will leave it for others to decide which of us
believes in magic. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>.. the logic seems inescapable: either the receiver did not move on
>>the night when the Phoenix personnel were trying to verify the SETI hit, or
>>else a false signal was fed into the receiver.
>
>There is another alternative - that it was a different signal!

***{The probability is vanishingly small that this is the case. --MJ}***

>
>>The reason I say that is
>>simple: it is not plausible that Paul Dore in England, K.F. Benton on
>>Guernsey, and, most recently, Jay Oka in Tokyo, are making this all up. The
>>signal is there, it is not due to local, land-based interference, and it
>>has been there for too long to be coming from a geosynchronous satellite.
>>The only explanation that makes sense to me at the moment is that it is
>>coming from an alien transmitter somewhere along the line of sight from
>>earth to EQ Pegasi. If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.
>
>Why should I need another explanation.  I am overjoyed with the
>obvious one.

***{See above. --MJ}***

>
>>Thus your claim that no "black box" could be buried in their code appears
>>to be simply a leap of faith. Nevertheless, it seems pointless for us to
>>continue arguing about my suspicions: they are a matter of judgment. As
>>such, they are not subject to verbal proof or disproof. I would have to fly
>>down to Arecibo and go over the entire system with a crack team of experts
>>before I would be convinced that nothing is amiss. Since that obviously
>>ain't gonna happen, I think you would make better use of your time by
>
>I don't intend to waste any more of my time.  You are welcome to
>believe in an omniscient, omipresent, omipotent government if you
>wish.

***{You are the one who apparently worships the government, not I. --MJ}***

 Why don't you offer your services to put such black boxes
>as you describe around the place.  I'm sure they would pay a
>fortune for such magic.  And you could actually work against them
>by building flaws into them so that they occasionally did the
>wrong thing and so got discovered, or occasionally failed to do
>the right thing and so let out a secret or two!

***{Every report that I have read indicates that the NSA and CIA are
crawling with black ops hardware and software experts already, so why would
they need me? --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:08:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14921;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:04:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:04:13 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:01:56 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Corrections to Jed's comments . . .
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021603_MC2-5ECA-49CD compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"gHAJX.0.-e3.BvXFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24008
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

<ahem> Mitch Swartz made some interesting comments so I will remove this
carrot from my ear, and address them.

       Irrespective of the existence of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or
     otherwise;    Jed is wrong. Those interested will read "The McDaniel
     Report" . . .

That is an excellent book. It proves my point: the government is incapable of
covering up extraterrestrial life or anything else. According to McDaniel, it
was once official policy to cover up evidence for this to avoid a panic, and
that policy may still be in effect. Obviously it has failed. It didn't just
fail, it backfired! Many people believe in UFOs; few believe the government.
The UFO authors have more credibility than the Feds! Despite the widespread
belief in UFOs there is no panic, so the original thesis was wrong. I would
say the government's ability to cover up UFO evidence and squelch controversy
is about as good as Our President's ability to cover up his putz.

I recommended that cold fusion scientist act rationally in their own
interests. Schwartz responds:

     Jed is apparently wrong again.

     Those interested should read the past DOE SBIR solicitations which
     explicitly refused to consider cold fusion.

An "SBIR" refers to application for a government grant. Any cold fusion
scientist who would consider applying for a government grant is not rational,
and not working for his own best interests. That's asking for trouble. No,
it's begging for trouble! It would be like pinning a dozen $100 bills on your
shirt and strolling through a ghetto at night. The DOE detests cold fusion. It
is the last place on earth you should go. Thousands of investors are anxious
to put money into this field. Many of them show up at the ICCF conferences,
where Schwartz refuses to talk to them (they tell me). Yet Swartz talks about
going to his worst rival which he knows will categorically reject him!
Business hint: When starting a venture that will put Mr. Smith out of
business, don't ask Smith to lend you the capital. When you plan to launch a
surprise attack at dawn tomorrow, don't visit the enemy this evening and beg
for ammunition.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:21:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21588;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:19:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:19:15 -0800
Message-ID: <363CEBA7.8086572A sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 15:15:51 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: (Off topic) re:SETI hit(or miss?)
References: <l03130300b26333f61ecd [12.64.35.17]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kkWZ32.0.EH5.I7YFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24010
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Check out the MIB's cars in the "black sedans" link on that page. They've
> done it again. Just like the two identical photos of the signal screen
> dumps, here's two identical photos of a black car. 

Identical? Wow, I didn't know a BMW and a Sedan were the same thing! ;)
Look at the radiator grille, hood, lights, wheel covers, tires, bumpers,
and paint job. Incredible photographer that can make a vehicle totally
change these aspect when filmed from different angles. (no hard
feelings, I'm just goofing around.)

To all of Vortex-L:
As far as my feeling on conspiracy theories; they do happen. Everyday.
If no one here believes that, then you are not too bright. Government
can't keep secrets? Wow, what about the Manhatten project, B-2 bomber,
F-117, etc. As far as hiding alien "stuff" I don't know. I honestly
don't. But I will not say it is impossible for them to try and hide it.
Anyone that does is, well, not too bright. :-)

Now, lets get back to the regular stuff. Anyone have some experiments to
suggest?

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:27:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09704;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102212718.00e69c24 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, 02 Nov 1998 16:27:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
Resent-Message-ID: <"jCJFT3.0.IN2.MBYFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24011
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Jed and all other sentient beings;

At 12:59 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>To: Vortex

>While I am on the subject, let me say I find it amusing that people believe
>the government is suppressing information about extraterrestrial intelligence.
>It has no motive! To the contrary, the discovery of extraterrestrials beings
>would be an enormous shot in the arm for the military budget, NASA, and big
>government science in general. If anything I would expect the government to
>perpetrate a hoax. People say the government is suppressing this information
>to prevent a panic. That makes no sense.

The test case was the original live "War of The Worlds" radio broadcast so
I've heard. People jumped out of windows. This is probably the excuse they
still use today.

There sre statements that the gov traded to the aliens 'lawful' access on
humans for what ever reason in return for alien technology.

>Many citizens already believe in UFOs
>already, so why would panic ensue? In the past we faced genuine threats like
>the Nazis and communism. The government never downplayed these threats. It
>never pooh-poohed polio, cocaine, crime or AIDS. If anything, the government
>is somewhat alarmist. The Pentagon still claimed that the Russians were poised
>to take over the world in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell and the USSR
>collapsed. Russia turned out to be a paper-mache boogy man.

The anti UFO dogma is so well implanted in government there may not be any
one source but left over attitudes that go on autopilot and direct all
personnel by corporate culture and everyone is against free energy and
antigravity but no one knows why and don't have reason to not go with the
flow. If some how, understanding of the complex factors involving lage scale
icecap slippage were to be imbued on these bureaucrats, they'd realize they
must change that policy or perish with everyone else.


>The government can't keep secrets worth a damn anyway. It is terribly
>disorganized, and it has no talent for suppressing information. It hasn't
>suppressed this news! Here we are talking about it -- where are the Men in
>Black? 

Real UFO / FE equipment is probably the threshold where one crosses into big
trouble. You hear this, again and again and again....

>     MIB'S - Also referred to as the 'Men In Black' or
>'Horlocks'.  These are apparently in many cases humans who are
>controlled by draconian influences, although other 'MIB' have
>been encountered which do not seem human, but more reptilian OR
>synthetic.  The 'MIB' have been encountered often after UFO
>sightings, usually intimidating witnesses into keeping silent
>about what they've seen (many of the witnesses may be
>'abductees' with suppressed memories of the event).  Their
>'threats' appear to be motivated by attempts to utilize
>'terrorism', 'fear' or 'intimidation' as a psychological weapon
>against witnesses.  This 'weapon' may not only be used to keep
>the human 'MIB' under control, but by the human MIB themselves. 
>'They' are often though not always seen in connection with large,
>black automobiles, some of which have been seen disappearing into
>mountains, canyons or tunnels or in some cases apparently appear
>out of or disappear (cloak?) into thin air.  Most human MIB have
>probably been implanted by the Draconians and are essentially
>their 'slaves'.  Bio-synthetic 'infernals' also seem to play a
>part in the MIB scenario, as do subterranean and exterran
>societies.  Sirius, at only 9+ light years away, has been
>identified as a major exterran MIB center of activity, with a
>subterran counterpart existing in ancient antediluvian
>'Atlantean' underground complexes which have been 're-
>established' beneath the Eastern U.S. seaboard
>(Draconian-Evadamic).

Just for laughs Jed, read this once some time:

http://www.serve.com/shadows/alientypes.txt


One faction in the government made a half hearted attempt to suppress
>cold fusion in 1989 with the ERAB report. But today you can learn all about
>cold fusion on the Internet. The Patent Office has fought against cold fusion,
>but it fights against all innovations, and CETI showed that you can get a
>patent for a cold fusion device with clever legal jujitsu. Some CF scientists
>blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents, but it
>is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
>rationally in their own interests. Many of the lunatic fringe CF and o-u
>scientists who claim government and corporate conspiracies are actually kooks
>and frauds. Their claims are bullshit and their machines do not exist. They
>carry on hysterically and point fingers at imaginary enemies to distract
>attention from their own failures.

Spend two weeks studying 5/5/2000 icecap theory. Einstein says it's possible
for the poles to tip under those circumstances.


Without exception, FE/OU research will reveal a repeating pattern of evil
from a multitude of different sources. Always the same magnitude of
attrocity is the image one gets about this field. Again and again and again...

You see a level of fear in the eyes of those who were there that you don't
forget. Again and again and again....

The message you get from those who were there. If you learn how to do
anything, you will disappear. Again and again and again....

Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:25:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24571;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:23:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:23:01 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102213002.00e77a8c 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, 02 Nov 1998 16:30:02 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: PROVE IT'S OK
Resent-Message-ID: <"U3Sop.0.f_5.qAYFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24012
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

If the government gave us help some how we would know it's OK.

UFU hardware?

Alien engineer consulting?

Anything? A PEEP EVEN?


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:26:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26784;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:24:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:24:37 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:20:59 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Corrections to . . . NatSpeak
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811021623_MC2-5ED1-C7F compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"M2S-Y1.0.QY6.LCYFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24013
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In the last message I posted, the NatSpeak voice input program managed to
spell "Swartz" wrong two or three times. It is supposed to be consistent,
spelling a word or name the same way after you introduce it or correct it
the first time.

Sorry about that! I hate spelling people's names wrong.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 13:46:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03248;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:42:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:42:17 -0800
Message-ID: <363E1D8F.1B2C interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 16:01:03 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
References: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gmlAp2.0.co.uSYFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24014
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
(Snip)
 
 To the contrary, the discovery of extraterrestrials beings
> would be an enormous shot in the arm for the military budget, NASA, and big
> government science in general. 

Excellent point, Jed!  You had to have lived through the Sputnick scare
of 1958 (I think it was? - maybe late '57) to really appreciate this.
When I went to work for NACA (the precursor of NASA) in 1958, I believe
the whole NACA budget was a few hundred million per year.  A few years
later, and into the Moon program, with NASA, I believe the NASA budget
had grown to something like 4 or 5 billion per year - I'm foggy on the
exact figures.  The point is, true ET contact would be the greatest
thing for all science we have seen to date.  If government "suits" tried
to suppress it, some bold scientist or engineer would "leak" the story -
feeling confident that if they lost their job over it, no matter, in
the tech blowup to follow, a new job would be easy to come by!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 14:01:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08832;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:59:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:59:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981102170200.007e1150 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:02:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: More Corrections to Jed's comments
In-Reply-To: <199811021603_MC2-5ECA-49CD compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"CvBS-2.0.w92.eiYFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24015
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 04:01 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>  Irrespective of the existence of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or
> otherwise;    Jed is wrong. Those interested will read "The McDaniel
>   Report" . . .
>
>That is an excellent book.

  We agree on something.  Great.  ZOWIE.

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


> It proves my point: the government is incapable of
>covering up extraterrestrial life or anything else.

  No!  it does NOT prove Jed's point.

  FACT: Governmental secrecy on many subjects 
exists to varying degrees.   Even today the Supreme
Court refused to permit workers info on Area 51
in which they toiled.

  from AP: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Area 51 Workers
          11/2/98 
"The Supreme Court today turned away an appeal by workers 
at a top-secret Air Force base in Nevada who claim they 
and colleagues may have been exposed to extremely harmful 
levels of hazardous waste. 
Invoking the legal privilege attached to state and military 
secrets, the appeals court said lawyers for the workers and 
widows are not entitled to learn what hazardous substances 
exist at Area 51 or how they are handled."

   Given the ruling which indicates secrecy exists,
Rothwell's comments again demonstrate ignorance. 

   Jed: try to put your encylopedia CDROM away
and get thee to a library NOW.   Run, dont walk.

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



>I recommended that cold fusion scientist act rationally in their own
>interests. Schwartz responds:
>
>     Jed is apparently wrong again.
>
>     Those interested should read the past DOE SBIR solicitations which
>     explicitly refused to consider cold fusion.
>
>An "SBIR" refers to application for a government grant. Any cold fusion
>scientist who would consider applying for a government grant is not rational,
>and not working for his own best interests. That's asking for trouble.

   Mr. Rothwell demonstrates inaccuracy many ways here.
The most important point of which Jed is inaccurate is that
Jed was AGAIN blaming the wrong people. 
  (There may be NO need for blame, either).

  In any case, this is what Jed wrote:

    >Some CF scientists
    >blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents,
but it
    >is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
    >rationally in their own interests.

  Changing the subject won't help.  Jed was wrong to blame
anyone, especially the workers in the field -- as unfortunately
seems to be his penchant. 

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

> No, >it's begging for trouble! It would be like pinning a dozen $100
bills on your
>shirt and strolling through a ghetto at night. The DOE detests cold
fusion. It
>is the last place on earth you should go. 

 Jed is wrong again.  
The DOE is correct place for possible fusion funding 
in the non-commercial sector.  There are good scientists
there as well.  


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


>Mitch Swartz made some interesting comments so I will remove this
>carrot from my ear, and address them.  ..  Thousands of investors are anxious
>to put money into this field. Many of them show up at the ICCF conferences,
>where Schwartz refuses to talk to them (they tell me).


  ROTFL.  More fabrication by Jed.
  Jed, get thy carrot out of your ear, and put it into
your mouth along with some fish as brain-food, and perhaps the 
better nutrition will increase your accuracy.   ;-)X

  Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:02:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01318;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:00:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:00:34 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102230720.00e13184 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, 02 Nov 1998 18:07:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: (Off topic) re:SETI hit(or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5rURx1.0.RK.HcZFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24016
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 03:15 PM 11/1/98 -0800, you wrote:

>Now, lets get back to the regular stuff. Anyone have some experiments to
>suggest?

Are you will to do some homework first?


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:21:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07018;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:20:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:20:16 -0800
Message-Id: <199811022319.SAA02292 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:22:02 -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: <"Gbl1O.0.Oj1.juZFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24017
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



> The message you get from those who were there. If you learn how to do
> anything, you will disappear. Again and again and again....
> 
> Dennis

So, this is how someone appears after they have disappeared.  And it can
happen more than once.

Ed Wall (still appearing, at least occasionally)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:37:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13016;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:36:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:36:21 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b263f10c1fff [12.72.128.26]>
In-Reply-To: <363CEBA7.8086572A sunherald.infi.net>
References: <l03130300b26333f61ecd [12.64.35.17]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:33:08 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: (Off topic) re:SETI hit(or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Be_2B.0.9B3.p7aFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24018
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Kyle -


>Identical? Wow, I didn't know a BMW and a Sedan were the same thing! ;)
>Look at the radiator grille, hood, lights, [...]

They changed the photos. When I logged onto that site last night, there
were two perfectly identical images, with captions describing what were
obviously intended to be different images. Now apparently they've changed
them. This is the second time they've done this, the first being with the
screen dumps of the "signal".

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:42:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14628;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:40:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:40:57 -0800
Message-ID: <000501be06b9$d539bd40$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Acid Rain and O/U Secret Ingredients?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:37:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"jWksl3.0.Ua3.9CaFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24019
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The photochemical action on SOx and NOx to produce H2SO4 and HNO3 that ends
up in the
hydrosphere as a pH of 4.9 to 6.5 as opposed to
the normal pH of 5.6 from the formation of
H2CO3 is rather interesting.

NO + Ox ---> NO2 + O

SO2 + Ox ---> SO3 + O

SO3 + D2O --->  2 D+ + SO4--

3 NO2 + D2O ---> 2 D+ + 2 NO3- + NO

A bit of Silver in the Cf Cells?

2 Ag + 2 DNO3 ---> 2 Ag+ + 2 NO3- + 2 D

It might be interesting to add some Silver Nitrate to an Electrolysis Cell
to see if it
would "Plate" on the Cathode in a concentrated
mix with D+ ions, since it is so close to Palladium, yield some interesting
CF effects with the aqueous solution acidified with HNO3
and/or DNO3.

Maybe Scott needs a Rain-Barrel  or Cistern. :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:50:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18276;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:48:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:48:32 -0800
Message-ID: <363E44A2.235E08F5 ariel.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:47:46 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: pop-culture CF reference?    :)
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981101134051.14891A-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"q6g5b.0.ST4.GJaFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24020
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

William Beaty wrote:
> 
> As the kid's video is playing in the background, I hear:
> 
>   "Do you people still use fossil fuels, or have you discovered crystallic
>    fusion?"      - Buzz Lightyear, TOY STORY
> 

I just caught Blue Man Group's Tubes in Boston... 

They congratulated some random guy in the audience for finally figuring
out cold fusion.  And yes, it was a joke :-)

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 15:55:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20686;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:53:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:53:57 -0800
Message-ID: <363D0FED.6270657C sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 17:50:37 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: SETI/geocities guy
References: <l03130300b26333f61ecd [12.64.35.17]> <l03130301b263f10c1fff@[12.72.128.26]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"W1Xdn1.0.835.LOaFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24021
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

> They changed the photos. When I logged onto that site last night, there
> were two perfectly identical images, with captions describing what were
> obviously intended to be different images. Now apparently they've changed
> them. This is the second time they've done this, the first being with the
> screen dumps of the "signal".

Oh, that explains it. I think whoever did this web page did not take the
time to study HTML coding. He/she did a less than excellent job putting
this website together. Take a look at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/newdata.html

Webmeister (my nickname for the Dore-SETI web page creator) didn't
link/upload the images properly.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 16:03:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24118;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:02:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:02:32 -0800
Message-ID: <363D11F0.241EC06E sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 17:59:12 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
References: <199811021603_MC2-5ECA-49CB compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"uHPjn.0.iu5.OWaFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24022
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Would be possible to modify a large satellite TV receiver for this
> purpose? I suppose you would need improved electronics and a tracking
> mechanism.

Absolutely. Check http://www.bambi.net

I had an old 10 foot dish that I was going to convert to a SETI dish,
but Hurricane Georges decided to change my plans. The image of a large
treetop colliding violently with my dish is thoroughly burned into my
mind :-)

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 16:46:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07559;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:43:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:43:58 -0800
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:45:04 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Murray
In-reply-to: <v01530500b2639050d52c [208.228.222.126]>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199811030043.RAA10316 smtp2.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: <"cYMCU2.0.vr1.C7bFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24023
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:43 AM 11/2/98 -0900, you wrote:
>I'm grateful to Rich Murray for providing some of the only on topic
>material here in weeks.  It is thought provoking, even if half the argument
>is from a guy who accepts theory above experimental results.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          
> 

I couldn't agree more about it being the only on-topic stuff lately. I
don't exactly see why you claim Blue "accepts theory above experimental
results" though.  It it pretty clear that he is not convinced there *are*
any "experimental results" in CF that are open to and can stand scrutiny.
Given the continuing lack of the hot water heater, it would appear to the
casual observer (me, for example) that perhaps Blue is correct, Jed's
tirades notwithstanding.

I find the Murray posted debates to be a very interesting and educational
exchange. I certainly hope Rich continues posting them. Shame on Jed,
supposedly being a journalistic type, for wishing to suppress this debate.

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 18:06:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12714;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:04:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:04:30 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b264147ae211 [208.228.222.112]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:09:50 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"E6qi7.0.W63.jIcFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24024
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:50 PM 11/2/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>>  A design
>>patent is a very weak patent compared to a utility patent, which covers all
>>embodiments within the definitions of the claims.  It is the appearance of
>>your toy which is patented.
>
>I challenge you to find a use for the mechanism other than intellectual
>visualization . I challenge you to visualize the mechanism.


I haven't made the meaning clear here.  It appears you have not had the
experience of obtaining a utility patent. The requirements are
significantly greater than and different from those for a design patent.
My point is that, if you are serious about protecting an invention, you
should get some professional advice before disclosing anything publically.


Since I have now belabored the point, this concludes my discussion on this
point.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 18:11:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16524;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:09:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:09:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199811030209.UAA05548 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:08:11 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"nirHO2.0.624.pNcFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24025
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell -
>
>   >  Your idea that this all comes from the geocities.com website
>   >  does not appear to be correct. Paul Dore actually exists.
>
>It looks pretty correct to me. All the information on this story comes from
>one (or two) websites on Geocities. How hard is it to make up a bunch of
>stuff, a "Paul Dore" (who may or may not actually exist) with some phony
>CV, and convert it all to HTML and upload it?

***{Like I said, the guy has a website where he has posted his work
history, hobbies, etc. You can check it out at
http://www.web-computing.demon.co.uk/. Of course, it proves nothing: it
could all be part of an elaborate hoax. Likewise for K.F. Benton on
Guernsey and Jay Oka in Japan. I noticed, for example, that Jay Oka's
command of the English language is suspiciously good for a native Japanese.
Maybe he is a made-up person, like Paul Dore. As for K.F. Benton, has
anybody actually e-mailed the guy? (His address is gu0nhd hotmail.com.)
Maybe he doesn't exist, either!

But, of course, this is all a bit silly. When pressed, I must concede the
possibility that these people do not exist, just as I must concede the
possibility that "Rick Monteverde" does not exist. But that does not mean
the evidence presently supports that possibility. (And if evidence comes
out tomorrow which flatly proves that this *is* a hoax and that none of
these people exist--including "Rick Monteverde"--it will remain true that
the evidence that I am aware of today, Oct. 2, 1998, does not so indicate.)


--Mitchell Jones}***

  This guy can't get anything
>right. He shifted his story and accompanying images *several* times on the
>SETI list to meet *several* challenges that were posted there, according to
>Shostak.

***{You need to remember that if Paul Dore is right, then the SETI
institute looks likes a bunch of incompetent fools or worse. After all,
they got an anomalous transmission from EQ Pegasi on Sep. 17, and concluded
that it was just interference. That means you ain't exactly talking to a
disinterested party here. (Dr. Shostak, if memory serves, is the guy who
decided that the signal was interference!) Thus it is a simple choice:
either they make Paul Dore look like a fraud, or he will, quite
unintentionally, make them look like fools. What we are looking at here is
the beginnings of a classic bureaucratic turf war. The last really
clear-cut example was the Pon-Fleischmann "cold fusion" imbroglio, in 1988.
Pons and Fleischmann, like Paul Dore, did an end-run around the established
"peer-review" (i.e., censored) publication channels, by going directly to
the press with their claim to have produced room temperature fusion.
Result: hot fusion scientists, who had bilked taxpayers out of more than 50
billion over the years and produced nichevo, found themselves looking like
idiots. Naturally, they retaliated by hurling charges of fraud, greatly
damaging the careers of Pons and Fleischmann in the process. You are about
to see a rerun here, I think. This time it is Paul Dore whose life and
career are in danger of being wrecked, but the nature of the underlying
process is virtually the same. --Mitchell Jones}***

He can't even upload the right pictures. He changes the content of
>cut and pasted "e-mail" when it's found to have questionable content. The
>only "confirmations" are from individuals making claims by e-mail. What
>about their identity and credibility?
>
>I can't understand how you think that it's likely that this is real

***{I never actually said that I think it is likely that this particular
episode is real. Here is what I believe: (a) ET's are certainly real, and
may be visiting Earth now, (b) major governments about the world are
strongly motivated to cover up evidence that ET's are real, (c) they have
the power to introduce enough disinformation and misinformation into any
supposed "proof" of the existence of ET's, so that in the end no outsider
(that's us) will be able to argue conclusively one way or the other, and
(d) that's what I expect to happen here.

In other words, when the dust settles on this particular episode I expect
that there will have been enough conflicting information introduced so that
it becomes impossible to prove anything one way or the other, and the
interpretation will be a matter of judgment, not of facts and logic.
Result: the ruling elite wins and the people lose, as usual.

--Mitchell Jones}***

in the
>face of a complete lack of any credible evidence that it is, and in the
>face of accumulating evidence that it's probably a hoax. The ENTIRE STORY
>sources in the one or now maybe two Geocities websites. The only positive
>story on this comes form the BBC, which seems to have gotten its
>information from the GEOCITIES site. Everything else points to a hoax.
>IMHO, there have been zero confirmations of an anomalous signal.
>
>I'd love for this to be real. However so far I've not seen one shred of
>credible evidence that it is, but rather a growing list of evidence that
>it's a hoax. Too bad.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

***{Rick, you are just buying into the spin from the SETI institute. You
need to remember that, while they may be right, they also have an axe to
grind. If I were you I would just follow the flow of events closely, and
see what happens. Criticize the non sequiturs, agree with the insightful
commentary, and stay in focus. That's what I am doing, and I'm having great
fun with this. It is both fascinating and a barrel of laughs! --Mitchell
Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 18:29:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA27235;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:28:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:28:40 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b264173385e8 [208.228.222.169]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:34:32 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Murray's question
Resent-Message-ID: <"GyidN.0.Tf6.NfcFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24026
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:53 PM 11/2/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
>Horace Heffner writes:
>
>    I'm grateful to Rich Murray for providing some of the only on topic
>    material here in weeks.
>
>It is not on-topic. It is imaginary. An on-topic discussion would have some
>connection with the real world. Blue says there was one reading when in fact
>there were millions.


A billion temperature readings at one inappropriate point is a billion
wrong and unsubstantiated readings.  If you look at a wrong clock a billion
times a second you will get the wrong time of day very fast.


>Suppose I claimed Pons and Fleischmann generated 100
>million watts. My error would be in the same range as Blue's (of approximately
>the same order of magnitude). Would anyone say I am making an interesting
>on-topic contribution? [snip]


Picky, picky, picky.  8^)

It's a lot closer to on topic than most of the other content on this list
lately.  OK, granted, we don't see much in the way of data or rigorous
formulation. It is a somewhat popularised discussion - but it seems an
appropriate level for the theory involved and detail of available data.


>
>
>    It is thought provoking, even if half the argument is from a guy who
>    accepts theory above experimental results.
>
>It is not thought-provoking.

Sorry for you Jed that you don't find the debate thought provoking. It
raises interesting questions to me, mostly about theory to which I haven't
been exposed, and makes me want to get a lot more serious about studying
physics.  For it not being thought provoking to you, you sure put out a lot
of prose about it!  Does this mean the prose is thought-less?    8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:07:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11227;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:06:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:06:14 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:06:08 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Secrecy on these discussion groups
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981101233433.00e4e108 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981102163155.27394C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"D7xCv3.0.Ll2.bCdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24027
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

> I was wondering about the public disclosure issue for our planned group
> discussions for a CF design. Is it possible to with hold public posting of
> the project communications until the coast is clear so to speak? It would be
> better to structure a relaxed environment with time constraints a low
> priority. Other than the deadlines for the ICCF conference paper of course.

These lists are public, anyone can subscribe, therefor delaying the
archives cannot change the public nature of the discussions.  It would
also run counter to the philosophy behind these lists. 

Does this sound familiar:  ?

  All information should be free.

  Mistrust authority--promote decentralization. 

  Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative

I grew up during the home computer revolution, and so I've seen what
hobbyists can do if they adopt a philosophy of freely sharing information. 
I'm not totally ignorant of science history, so I'm aware that the
enormous progress of modern science is based on one very important
principle: publication; cross-pollination which comes from the free
sharing of information.  Even inventors have an equivalent process in the
full disclosure as patents, in exchange for 17yr monopoly rights.

I look at the history of fringe-science inventions and I see a single
large barrier to all progress: secrecy.  Secrecy on the part of inventors. 
Secrecy motivated by greed, ego, and a need for absolute control.  The
government didn't suppress free energy, the inventors did it themselves by
refusing to part with any information which would allow others to verify
their discoveries.  If "men in black" ever suppressed an invention, they
were only able to do so because their victims had been hiding the
discovery away.

These lists really are intended for people who expose secrets, who act as
scientists rather than as inventors, and who want to spread ideas rather
than owning them.  If your ideas and discoveries are gifts to be shared,
then share them here.  On the other hand, if they are your private
property which requires protection, then why damage that protection by
letting the ideas become public?

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov  2 19:15:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15986;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:14:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:14:44 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b2641c42b618 [208.228.222.169]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:20:38 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Thanks to Murray
Resent-Message-ID: <"-ET7m2.0.ev3.aKdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24028
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:45 PM 11/2/98, Lynn Kurtz wrote:
>At 07:43 AM 11/2/98 -0900, you wrote:
>>I'm grateful to Rich Murray for providing some of the only on topic
>>material here in weeks.  It is thought provoking, even if half the argument
>>is from a guy who accepts theory above experimental results.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Horace Heffner
>>
>
>I couldn't agree more about it being the only on-topic stuff lately. I
>don't exactly see why you claim Blue "accepts theory above experimental
>results" though.  It it pretty clear that he is not convinced there *are*
>any "experimental results" in CF that are open to and can stand scrutiny.
>Given the continuing lack of the hot water heater, it would appear to the
>casual observer (me, for example) that perhaps Blue is correct, Jed's
>tirades notwithstanding.
[snip]


I'll agree that Blue might be on the correct side of the issue, but if he
is it is by chance!  He is certainly taking the safe side in one sense, in
that he sticks with conventional tried an true theory.  He continually
argues that various reported experiments must be wrong because the results
don't agree with this or that accepted theory.  Theories don't generally
get accepted without a lot of corroberation, both published and
non-published.  It is no surprise when accepted theory predicts such and
such a result and those results are observed time and again or used in
experimental design of unrelated issues. No one reports that kind of thing,
the repeated occurance of expected results.  Blue undoubtedly has lots of
experience of that nature that confirms his beliefs in present theory.
Where Blue is not on the safe side of things is that, as the number of
publications reporting anomalies grows, the probability that increasing
numbers of skilled experimentalists are bungling things grows vanishingly
small.  The CF publications continue unabated.  Blue is now out into a
realm of faith I think, and faith is not science.

My feeling is that there has been way too much big science physics. I think
in science there have been too many big rocks pried upon and too few small
rocks unturned.  There are many mysteries that await discovery and
resolution, especially in QM, and a hugh amount of small science physics
work to be done.  If we continually look under the same rocks we build a
false sense of confidence that we know what lies under all rocks.  Though
not at all related to CF, it was a joy to see advances like Wieman and
Cornell's Bose condensate work done with nominal expense. There must be
lots more innovative small budget research to do. If nothing else, CF is
hopefully motivating scientists to look under smaller rocks. It really
doesn't matter why they look, just that they do look.

I'll confess that my opinion regarding Blue's bias has come from prior
experience discussing some of these issues with him in the past, e.g the
Kamada experiments.  When all else fails he simply dismisses experimental
data as having to be wrong because it is not consistent with theory.  It is
a good thing all peer reviewers do not take this appoach, else there would
be nothing new ever published.

For being just a guy using nothing but a terminal and his noggin I have to
admit he has done a pretty darn good and consistant job for a long time.
He is a real true believer.  I think the field will have made a giant leap
forward if we ever see the now retired Blue start experimenting on CF.
8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:18:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA16903;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:18:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:18:03 -0800
Message-ID: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:17:43 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: ET Signal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-Fo26.0.084.hNdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24029
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I know that youse guys are tiring of this but this might explain the
timing of a possible hoax:

http://www.setileague.org/press/pres9810.htm

Maybe someone has it in for Dr. SETI?

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:21:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA16966;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:18:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:18:23 -0800
Message-ID: <363E7D43.653A ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:49:23 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: (off topic?)  MIB
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981101134051.14891A-100000 eskimo.com> <363E44A2.235E08F5@ariel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vEZ2W3.0.094._NdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24030
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

November 1, 1998

Vortex,

There has been mentioned about MIB's lurking about.

Having visited and participated in the Sci. Newsgroups and this List, I
must say that (and I do not exclude myself :)), what we should be aware
of is Not MIB but MIW.

Beware the tinkling white van disguised as an ice cream truck.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:27:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20989;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:24:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:24:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199811030323.VAA06486 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:22:48 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
Resent-Message-ID: <"pIqIr1.0.s75.pTdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24031
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vortex and Bill Beaty: Jim Ostrowski has been trying to post to this
group and his posts keep getting bounced. Likewise, when he attempts to
send a complaint directly to Bill Beaty, his e-mail gets bounced. He asked
me to assist, and so I am passing on two of the messages that were bounced,
in hopes that someone can figure out what the problem is. The bounced
messages follow. --Mitchell Jones

********************************************
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date:     Mon,  2 Nov 98 12:30:43 PST
Message-Id: <9811021230.AA00370 ca-ois.com>
From:     "Postmaster" <postmaster ca-ois.com>
Reply-To: <postmaster ca-ois.com>
To:       <jimostr ca-ois.com>
Subject:  Undeliverable Mail
X-Mailer: <SMTP32 v971219>

undeliverable to vortex-l eskimo.com


Original message follows.

Received: from JIMOSTRO [12.9.213.26] by ca-ois.com
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A66ED8903DE; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:30:38 PST
Message-ID: <363E1ED4.4A77 ca-ois.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:06:29 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
References: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> To: Vortex
>
> I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic.

We have already been around this bend, Jed. Cold fusion science, if it
can be called a science, is not the only topic suitable for discussion
on vortex.

In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
Naturally, the experimental result begs the question of whether or not
there are aliens , here or elswhere.

In fact we have far more in the way of confirmation with the software
screen dumps than
I've ever seen posted on the alleged cold fusion phenomena.  The
questions as to whether or not this SETI hit is a hoax is the object of
the continuing discussions posted by Mitchell Jones and others. There is
much that reamins to be done with this including the possibility of
further confirmation by ham radio operators with moonbounce type
equipment. I am presently in contact with a tech class ham who has
access to a privately owned moonbounce setup.

THIS LIST IS NOT THE PRIVATE DOMAIN OF CF EXPERIMENTERS.

SETI DISCUSSIONS ARE ON TOPIC.

The obvious attempts by you and Frederick to suppress this subject is in
itself support for Mitchell's theory of an ongoing coverup, not only on
the part of government(s), but by Gov't stooges , such as yourselves.

A stooge may not recognise that he is a stooge based on the fact that he
is not paid by government to be one. That is the whole point. Why should
the government pay for what it can get for free?

Jim Ostrowski
********************************************

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date:     Mon,  2 Nov 98 13:24:33 PST
Message-Id: <9811021324.AA00355 ca-ois.com>
From:     "Postmaster" <postmaster ca-ois.com>
Reply-To: <postmaster ca-ois.com>
To:       <jimostr ca-ois.com>
Subject:  Undeliverable Mail
X-Mailer: <SMTP32 v971219>

undeliverable to billb eskimo.com


Original message follows.

Received: from JIMOSTRO [12.9.213.25] by ca-ois.com
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A2E94BE062A; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:23:53 PST
Message-ID: <363E2B3E.43BE ca-ois.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:59:26 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: billb eskimo.com
Subject: Rejcted mail: vortex posts
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------70D86B017F"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------70D86B017F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Bill,

My emailer cannot get through to vortex-l or vortex-l-request , although
I can still get messages to others. What do you think is happenning?
Attaching my rejected mail.

Jim Ostrowski

--------------70D86B017F
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date:     Mon,  2 Nov 98 12:30:43 PST
Message-Id: <9811021230.AA00370 ca-ois.com>
From:     "Postmaster" <postmaster ca-ois.com>
Reply-To: <postmaster ca-ois.com>
To:       <jimostr ca-ois.com>
Subject:  Undeliverable Mail
X-Mailer: <SMTP32 v971219>

undeliverable to vortex-l eskimo.com


Original message follows.

Received: from JIMOSTRO [12.9.213.26] by ca-ois.com
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A66ED8903DE; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:30:38 PST
Message-ID: <363E1ED4.4A77 ca-ois.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:06:29 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
References: <199811021301_MC2-5ED5-CDE compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> To: Vortex
>
> I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic.

We have already been around this bend, Jed. Cold fusion science, if it
can be called a science, is not the only topic suitable for discussion
on vortex.

In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.

[message truncated]
********************************************







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:33:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA23899;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:32:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:32:16 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103033918.00eac524 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, 02 Nov 1998 22:39:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Pointless debate
Resent-Message-ID: <"5JNBV2.0.Hr5._adFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24032
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 11:09 AM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:

>This is not a scientific debate.

No one seems to be able to define if 103 cal./gram mole is correct
Dissociation Energy for H2. 

Com'on guys let's see how smart you are.

There is report of a conspiracy to conseal the true nature of hydrogen. Are
people afraid to look into this matter? Are they too embarrassed to show
that they don't know how this value was messed with? Or are you part of the
conspiracy? Well, when someone wants to try on topic research is this what
they get?

Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:45:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA28895;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:44:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:44:19 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:36:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pointless debate
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981103033918.00eac524 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981102223549.16126G-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NiUS63.0.J37.ImdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24033
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




	dissociation of H2 to or from WHAT???


On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

> Hi;
> 
> At 11:09 AM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >This is not a scientific debate.

??????????> 
> No one seems to be able to define if 103 cal./gram mole is correct
> Dissociation Energy for H2. 


??????
> 
> Com'on guys let's see how smart you are.
> 
> There is report of a conspiracy to conseal the true nature of hydrogen. Are
> people afraid to look into this matter? Are they too embarrassed to show
> that they don't know how this value was messed with? Or are you part of the
> conspiracy? Well, when someone wants to try on topic research is this what
> they get?
> 
> Dennis
> 
> 
> Tall Ships
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 19:56:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA01961;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:53:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:53:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103040040.00ea06b0 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, 02 Nov 1998 23:00:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate with Blue
Resent-Message-ID: <"r_yuP3.0.UU.8vdFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24034
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I just saw the toolman be given these words by the neighbor looking over the
fence.

-You go through life either believing everything, or believing nothing.-

Do the believers in everything win at least a few times? What do the
believers in nothing get when they win?



At 12:38 PM 11/2/98 -0000, you wrote:
>Jed wrote:
>
>> I do not understand why Rich Murray feels compelled to
>>broadcast this nonsense over the Internet. Does he know nothing about this
>>subject? Is he incapable of distinguishing between facts and fiction?
>
>Simple answer:   No.
>
>Gene Mallove


How distinct is this fact - fiction partition? Is it good to stand really
far away from it?


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 20:24:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16661;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:23:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:23:38 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103043034.00e616d4 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, 02 Nov 1998 23:30:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: SETI controversy
Resent-Message-ID: <"zi-0J2.0.F44.9LeFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24035
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 04:01 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
> To the contrary, the discovery of extraterrestrials beings
>> would be an enormous shot in the arm for the military budget, NASA, and big
>> government science in general. 
>
>Excellent point, Jed! 

If the aliens were given permission to 'use' civilians in return for
advanced technology consultants, announcing their presence and letting them
roam about may be a complex issue. This maybe reason for the government to
never come clean about alien presence. With the aliens possessing advance
weaponry, did we have a chance or the choice to say 'your not welcome'.


Dennis




Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 21:47:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07316;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:46:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:46:19 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103055324.00ea8d84 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, 03 Nov 1998 00:53:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments
Resent-Message-ID: <"O4Pki.0.Eo1.gYfFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24036
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:02 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:

>    >Some CF scientists
>    >blame the government because they have not gotten funding or patents,
>but it
>    >is their own fault. They could have anything they want if they would act
>    >rationally in their own interests.


we have from our government:

        1. No geophysical icecap crisis analysis
        2. No admission or offer of technology needed
        3. Government can fix problem but will not.

I feel it is in my own interest to address the icecap problem. I have no way
of resolving the matter. If ignoring the issue wasn't an available answer,
what could be done?


>> No, >it's begging for trouble! It would be like pinning a dozen $100
>bills on your
>>shirt and strolling through a ghetto at night.

I'd do it on a bet. ;)


 The DOE detests cold
>fusion. It
>>is the last place on earth you should go.

Now why is this? Financial conflict with those who affect DOE decisions?
Shouldn't thay be trying what's best period?


>>Mitch Swartz made some interesting comments so I will remove this
>>carrot from my ear, and address them.  ..  Thousands of investors are anxious
>>to put money into this field. Many of them show up at the ICCF conferences,
>>where Schwartz refuses to talk to them (they tell me).

Maybe you don't know how to spot them. Maybe you scare them away? This is
where Jed could be an invaluable asset to a project.


Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 22:01:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA11051;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:58:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:58:52 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102235732.00968490 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 23:57:32 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: H2 Dissoc energy
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981102223549.16126G-100000 antioch-college.e
 du>
References: <1.5.4.32.19981103033918.00eac524 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"geIld2.0.ai2.RkfFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24037
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I think Dennis C. Lee wrote:

> No one seems to be able to define if 103 cal./gram mole is correct
> Dissociation Energy for H2. 

I missed the original posting of this question but here is some info on
this quantity:

Experimental determinations of this quantity began in the 1930's with the
efforts of Beutler who measured the 84.5 nm UV absorption edge of H2 gas.
The edge occurs at the energy required to dissoc H2 into one ground state H
atom and one H atom in the first excited state....about 14.7 eV.  Subtract
10.2 eV for the excited H atom and you get the dissoc energy...about 4.5 eV.

Herzberg & Monfils measured it the same way using better equipment in 1960
and got 103.147 kcal/mole (4.477 eV/molecule).

Herzberg measured it again in 1970 using a huge 10.5 m spectrograph and got
103.162 kcal/mole (4.4781 eV/molecule).

In 1991, Balakrishnan calculated it using a 240-term expansion of the QM
wave equation and got 103.161 kcal/mole (4.47808 eV/molecule).

Why the interest?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 22:20:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA27943;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103061750.00e609b8 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, 03 Nov 1998 01:17:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate
Resent-Message-ID: <"g1HjX.0.Wq6.o0gFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24038
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Energy to split H2 gas molecule to   H   H    atoms?

I have been led to believe this figure (Dissociation Energy - hydrogen
molecule to two hydrogen atoms) is 103 cal./gram molecule in old books and
109,000 cal./gram molecule in new books. AND, they know the first value is
correct. They know the second figure is deceptive and wrong. I hope I'm
wrong. If true this could clear up a lot of con-fusion.

Any comments?

Thanks;
Dennis


At 10:36 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>	dissociation of H2 to or from WHAT???
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 22:40:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22286;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:38:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:38:51 -0800
Message-ID: <363EA978.6E93 ca-ois.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:58:01 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: mjones jump.net
Subject: Re: ET Signal
References: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net> <363EA67B.22@ca-ois.com> <363EA866.1422@ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DJ5ID.0.8S5.wJgFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24039
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Terry Blanton wrote:

 > I know that youse guys are tiring of this but this might explain the
 > timing of a > possible hoax:
 
 > http://www.setileague.org/press/pres9810.htm
 >
 >  Maybe someone has it in for Dr. SETI?
 >
 >
  Shuch has already expressed the opinion that the reception report from
  Dore is a hoax.
 
  In view of this fact, I do not see how you can conclude that this is a
  hoax with the objective of discrediting Shuch, if that is what you are
  trying to say here.
 
  The fact that he is scheduled to schmooze with his friends at the
  government funded facilities (Jodrell) indicates to me that they may
be
  getting ready to circle the wagans.
 
  Thank you for contributing, Terry. I, for one, think this subject is
  interesting and appreciate your bringing this particular item to my
  attention.
 
  Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 22:41:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23275;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:40:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:40:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981103004056.00968db0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:40:56 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981103061750.00e609b8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"N_lnP2.0.bh5.XLgFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24040
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:17 AM 11/3/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>I have been led to believe this figure (Dissociation Energy - hydrogen
>molecule to two hydrogen atoms) is 103 cal./gram molecule in old books and
>109,000 cal./gram molecule in new books. AND, they know the first value is
>correct. They know the second figure is deceptive and wrong. I hope I'm
>wrong. If true this could clear up a lot of con-fusion.

The second figure, 109 kcal/mole (about 4.75 eV/molecule) corresponds to
the full depth of the potential well (energy vs separation between atoms).
It is larger than the actual dissociation energy because the molecule
always possesses some energy even in the ground state. In the H2 molecule
this ground state energy is 0.27 eV.  In other words, since H2 molecules
always already have 0.27 eV of energy in the ground state, all you have to
put in is 4.48 eV more (i.e. 103.16 kcal/mole) to get them to come apart.

So 109 kcal/mole is not the dissoc energy of H2 molecules.  It's quite
possible that you can find some old texts which contain a mistake like that.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 22:56:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA28181;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:55:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:55:39 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103070240.00e3cc34 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, 03 Nov 1998 02:02:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Dissoc energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"Lq3DE2.0.Fu6.hZgFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24041
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418


"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy

The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."



At 11:57 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>I think Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>
>> No one seems to be able to define if 103 cal./gram mole is correct
>> Dissociation Energy for H2. 
>
>I missed the original posting of this question but here is some info on
>this quantity:
>
>Experimental determinations of this quantity began in the 1930's with the
>efforts of Beutler who measured the 84.5 nm UV absorption edge of H2 gas.
>The edge occurs at the energy required to dissoc H2 into one ground state H
>atom and one H atom in the first excited state....about 14.7 eV.  Subtract
>10.2 eV for the excited H atom and you get the dissoc energy...about 4.5 eV.

This doesn't look like the same definition of De as above.


>Herzberg & Monfils measured it the same way using better equipment in 1960
>and got 103.147 kcal/mole (4.477 eV/molecule).
>
>Herzberg measured it again in 1970 using a huge 10.5 m spectrograph and got
>103.162 kcal/mole (4.4781 eV/molecule).
>
>In 1991, Balakrishnan calculated it using a 240-term expansion of the QM
>wave equation and got 103.161 kcal/mole (4.47808 eV/molecule).
>
>Why the interest?

I think it is supposed to be 103 cal./gram molecule. Big difference!


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 23:21:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00794;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:20:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:20:47 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b2645d5d928d [12.72.128.26]>
In-Reply-To: <199811030209.UAA05548 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:17:26 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SETI hit (or miss?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cc2fg2.0.EC.ExgFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24042
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

 >  Rick, you are just buying into the
 > spin from the SETI institute.

I actually agreed with most of your message until this part. You are *SO*
wrong! I work hard at making up my own mind about things, and am very
suspicious of scientists in general - and as regards this story, SETI
spokesmen in particular. My conclusion that this is probably a hoax arises
mostly from the fact that this appears to be originating entirely from a
website - nothing else. Check DejaNews. See any independent confirmations
to any of the NGs by anyone, let alone people who are known to the regulars
as amateur radio or amateur SETI types? I haven't - yet. Still hoping.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 23:22:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00915;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:21:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:21:05 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2645b5587e0 [208.228.222.169]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:27:07 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Acid Rain and O/U Secret Ingredients?
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"SG4mm2.0.DE.XxgFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24043
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:37 PM 11/2/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>It might be interesting to add some Silver Nitrate to an Electrolysis Cell
>to see if it
>would "Plate" on the Cathode in a concentrated
>mix with D+ ions, since it is so close to Palladium, yield some interesting
>CF effects with the aqueous solution acidified with HNO3
>and/or DNO3.

This is called hydrogen codeposition.  As you may be aware, hydrogen
codeposition with Ni or Pd is a technique for loading films used in some CF
experiments (sorry don't have refs.) and especially codeposition of H and
Pd on Ni or carbon substrate.  Don't recall any Ag codeposition
experiments.  One problem with codeposition is that removal of H3O+ ions
from the diffusion layer near the electrode makes it alkaline and may cause
precipitation of a thick (100 to 1000 A) hydroxide film.  (Modern
Electrochem, Bockris & Reddy)  The amount of codeposition can be managed
somewhat by adjusting the electrolysis potential.  If the potential is made
sufficiently high hydrogen deposition can be obtained.  If the potential is
dropped sufficiently mostly metal deposition can be obtained.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 23:37:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA05669;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:36:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:36:06 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981103074254.00ea4340 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, 03 Nov 1998 02:42:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: H2 Diss quote
Resent-Message-ID: <"sarSv3.0.RO1.c9hFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24044
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418


"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy

The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


      Notice that the "at rest" state of the molecules, is couched in language
that makes you think that the "infinitely separated" atomic hydrogen atoms
represents the "excited state" for the element.  In layman's terms, the RQMs
simply made the statement that the dissociation and recombination energies had
to be the same, because their theories depended upon them being the same.  Then
they measured the dissociation energy backwards, by measuring the recombination
energy, and stating the measurement as if it were the dissociation energy.  The
statements are supplanted by a lot of RQM gobbledegook, with a (.spectroscopic
evaluation" thrown in like some snake oil, because the spectroscope purportedly
"can't lie".  There is also in the same text, at page 417, the following obtuse
statement:

            ".. In kilocalories per mole, De is 109."

      If hydrogen atoms exothermically release energy when they combine to form
molecules, the potential energy has been lost by the molecules, yet they
attribute the "potential energy" to the hydrogen molecules--backwards-to evade
their duty to draw the logical conclusion.  This lie is shown by a graph ("fig.
4") purporting to show the "potential energy of the hydrogen molecule in the
ground electronic state." This clearly misrepresents, by a Ph.D. in physics of
the "Royal Society", that hydrogen in the "atomic state" is not in a ground
state, but in an excited state.  In this 1965 physical chemistry text from
England, the heat energy generated on recombination of the hydrogen atom is
given
as 109,000 cal./gram mole, then misrepresented as the "potential energy" of the
"ground state hydrogen molecules" which have just formed!  But the ("ground
state" of hydrogen is the atomic state, with the electron at its lowest level of
energy, so the RQMs are hoist by their own petards, since there is no way the
ground state atoms could "store" the 109,000 cal./gram molecule.  Where, exactly
would this energy "reside"?  Concurrently, this same figure is falsely equated
with the heat generated exothermally when two hydrogen atoms --- each in its
"excited state"--come together to form a molecule.  Since the heat energy is
released on recombination, the molecules lack the potential energy already
released.  The potential energy of the separate atoms in their ground states, is
greater than that of the molecules, because the heat energy is released from the
entrained ether and converted ZPR --- not from the hydrogen atoms --- when they
combine to form molecules.

                                94






At 12:40 AM 11/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 01:17 AM 11/3/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>
>>I have been led to believe this figure (Dissociation Energy - hydrogen
>>molecule to two hydrogen atoms) is 103 cal./gram molecule in old books and
>>109,000 cal./gram molecule in new books. AND, they know the first value is
>>correct. They know the second figure is deceptive and wrong. I hope I'm
>>wrong. If true this could clear up a lot of con-fusion.
>
>The second figure, 109 kcal/mole (about 4.75 eV/molecule) corresponds to
>the full depth of the potential well (energy vs separation between atoms).
>It is larger than the actual dissociation energy because the molecule
>always possesses some energy even in the ground state. In the H2 molecule
>this ground state energy is 0.27 eV.  In other words, since H2 molecules
>always already have 0.27 eV of energy in the ground state, all you have to
>put in is 4.48 eV more (i.e. 103.16 kcal/mole) to get them to come apart.
>
>So 109 kcal/mole is not the dissoc energy of H2 molecules.  It's quite
>possible that you can find some old texts which contain a mistake like that.
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 23:43:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA06026;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:36:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:36:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103153825.00aa37e0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:38:25 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"HEEpj1.0.4U1.s9hFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24045
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

An update on CSIRO's efforts :-

>This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
>Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
>found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
>of the claimed detection.
>
>Details are on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  2 23:52:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA09527;
	Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:50:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:50:27 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03130300b26462a4cffb [12.64.4.77]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:47:12 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Pegasi SETI hit: definitely a hoax!
Resent-Message-ID: <"7fCs31.0.nK2.2NhFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24046
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vorts -

See:

http://www.seti.org/eqpeg.html

...for the latest, including:

  * The analysis details showing obvoius hoaxing of the "correction" of the
two originally indentical screen dump images.

  * Denial by the Effelsberg radiotelescope people that they are involved
in any way.

You can go to the German site yourself to see the denial. It's all in
German, but it looks more convincing even in German than anything on that
bogus Geocities website looks like in English.

This has been a crappy little web hoax from the start. It's amazing so many
people fell for it, then began attacking SETI as the bad guys trying to
suppress the truth. Makes me feel cheap to be a fringie myself. I'm not
ready to quit though...  ;)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 00:02:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA13404;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:01:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:01:25 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b264676ff04a [12.64.4.77]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981103153825.00aa37e0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:58:09 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
Resent-Message-ID: <"twYPG2.0.IH3.LXhFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24048
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John -

>An update on CSIRO's efforts :-
>
>>This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
>>Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
>>found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
>>of the claimed detection.
>>
>>Details are on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

The alleged Japanese guy got it at 1452.187, now it's down to 1451.8. I
hope whoever's on board that thing is wearing their seatbelts, that's got
to be some deceleration.

The geocities website and the Dore claims are bogus. I wonder what this new
data means.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 01:11:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00888;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:10:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:10:31 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b264747e713e [208.228.222.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:16:41 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
Resent-Message-ID: <"L8grb2.0.oD.6YiFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24049
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:38 PM 11/3/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>An update on CSIRO's efforts :-
>
>>This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
>>Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
>>found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
>>of the claimed detection.
>>
>>Details are on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility


This is a very interesting addition to the puzzle.  Here is a brief summary
of results:

27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
31-OCT-98       1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA - Australia)

The ATCA observation notes a 1 turn/min rotation rate.

The drop in frequency of 1.275 MHz appears to occur over a 175.4 hour
period, or about a drop of 7269 Hz/hr. If this frequency drop is a red
shift it is an indication of something decellerating into our vicinity.  It
would have to be pretty high velocity and far away to support that kind of
red shifting.  Also, it appears the declination might be increasing.  The
rotation rate certainly looks like something arteficial. Steadily dropping
frequency seems like a very strange characteristic for a satellite.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 01:27:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA03810;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:25:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:25:47 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2647b5c0e3b [208.228.222.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:31:54 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Dore object frequency drop
Resent-Message-ID: <"XxSyr.0.Sx.RmiFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24050
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is a brief summary of results:

27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
31-OCT-98 17:30 1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA - Australia)

The ATCA observation notes a 1 turn/min rotation rate.

The drop in frequency of 1.275 MHz appears to occur over a 175.4 hour
period, or about a drop of 7269 Hz/hr.

The time between the Dore and Oka observations is 4d 10h 15s, or 106.25
hours.  This should be a frequency drop of 0.7723 MHz.  The frequency drop
observed by Oka was 0.888 MHz.  If there is a continual frequency drop due
to redshift changes due to deceleration, then it appears the rate of
decelleration is also declining.  The early redshift was greater than the
later redshift.

Again, the rotation rate strikes me as something appropriate to an
artificial object.  It would be good to try to get a distance on the
object, maybe by very long baseline interferometry, or even a radar ping
ranging form Aricebo.

This is a great opportunity for amateur astronomers to attempt optical time
exposures in the vicinity.  The trace should be about vertical (increasing
Dec.)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 02:41:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA14048;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:40:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:40:15 -0800
Message-ID: <363EDD9D.9F5A8DFA GroupZ.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 05:40:29 -0500
From: sno <sno GroupZ.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: New Dore Msg on ET Signal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"v-54f2.0.QR3.EsjFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24051
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Whomever said the next thing would be a claim of 
a secret space probe sure had it right....here is 
new statement....

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/cancelled.html

steve

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 05:01:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA32253;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:58:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:58:13 -0800
Message-ID: <000901be0728$bbfe8b20$d350ddcf craig>
Reply-To: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: ATNF DOES see it, but dismisses it???
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:51:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01BE06F6.702643F0"
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: <"LrPS73.0.nt7.btlFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24052
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_01BE06F6.702643F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The ATNF Identifies the signal but dismisses it as a terrestrial =
satellite???

Someone really needs to explain this to me. That signal hasn't moved =
from it's location for almost 2 weeks now. No satellite can do this! Can =
anyone explain this to me?

Craig
------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/

ET isn=92t calling

=20

Executive Summary

We have observed the star EQ Peg from which it has been claimed that an =
artificial signal has been detected. We see no evidence for this, at a =
sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that of the claimed =
detection.

Background

On Wednesday 4 November an amateur astronomer from the UK, Paul Dore, =
and two other (unnamed) astronomers will hold a media conference to =
announce the discovery of repeating artificial signals from a star =
system called EQ Pegasi.=20

The finding was made by Mr Dore, an electrical engineer employed by =
Siemens Plessey Systems, using a 30-ft diameter satellite dish, on 22 =
October, and reported on the Internet on 26 October. An Internet report =
claims that two unnamed astronomers have now used the 100-m diameter =
Effelsberg telescope in Germany to make observations that confirm the =
signal. Management at the Max Planck Institut fur Radioastronomie, which =
runs the Effelsberg telescope, have since said that they have no =
knowledge of any such observation, nor do they know of any staff or =
users of the telescope who might make such a claim.

Both professional and amateur SETI groups have ridiculed the claim. For =
example, Professor Nathan Cohen of the University of Boston dismisses it =
as a hoax in a Business-Wire story on 29 October. This is partly because =
the discoverer did not follow the protocol which is followed by all the =
major SETI groups, and which includes a series of checks to prevent =
false alarms. Part of the scepticism is also because of various =
inconsistencies and errors in the original report. Nevertheless, some =
commentators are taking the story fairly seriously.

The ATCA Observations

The ATNF is able to check on these claims with relatively little effort, =
and on Monday 2 November observed the star EQ Peg with the Australia =
Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and the Mopra telescope. The results from =
the ATCA (which is a synthesis array, or interferometer, equivalent to a =
54-m diameter antenna) are shown below, and show no detected signal at =
the frequency claimed by Mr. Dore. Likewise, the results from Mopra (a =
22-m diameter antenna) showed nothing at this frequency or position.

The first figure shows a vector spectrum, which uses the power of the =
6-km long interferometer to remove nearly all interference, so it only =
"sees" the region in the immediate vicinity of the star. Clearly, =
nothing is seen. This spectrum is probably about 30 times more sensitive =
than that published by Mr. Dore.

=20



=20

The second figure shows a scalar spectrum, obtained by simply adding =
together the power received on each antenna. This is a relatively =
insensitive technique (although far more sensitive than the techniques =
employed by Mr. Dore) but has the advantage of seeing sources which are =
well outside the target position (the "phase centre").=20

=20



=20

Some interference is seen at about 1451.8 MHz, which is over 1 MHz away =
from the frequency of the signal observed by Mr. Dore (1453.075 MHz), =
and so is probably not related. Its amplitude varied over the course of =
the observation, as shown below, in a way consistent with a source =
moving through the sidelobes of the antenna.

=20

=20

Further analysis of this interference (the plot of phase against time =
below, which shows about 1 turn per min on a 350m baseline) shows it to =
be from a source several degrees away from the star. Almost certainly =
this is a terrestrial satellite broadcasting at this frequency.

=20

Such interference is not surprising. This frequency range is allocated =
to terrestrial broadcasting (including digital audio), satellite =
broadcasting, terrestrial mobile (including aircraft mobile and aircraft =
telemetry), and terrestrial fixed and mobile. So we shouldn't be too =
surprised when CW signals come and go. My guess is that Mr. Dore saw =
some such interference.

=20

=20

Technical details of the observation:

Position observed: (J2000) RA 23 31 49.51, Dec 19 56 16.8=20
Resolution: 4096 channels over 4 MHz bandwidth, centred on 1453 MHz=20
Time of observation: 98 Nov 2, UT 10:23 =96 10:42=20
10s integration time,=20
All six antennas of the ATCA, equivalent to 54-m diameter antenna=20
Mr. Dore=92s claimed detection frequency was 1453.07512Mhz plus or minus =
about +400 Hz (although subsequent amateur "confirmation" appears to be =
at 1453.833600 MHz)
=20



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------


Return to ATNF home page

Return to Ray Norris's home page

Last updated by Ray Norris on 3-Nov-1998=20


------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BE06F6.702643F0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="=?iso-8859-1?Q?ET_isn=92t_calling.url?="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="=?iso-8859-1?Q?ET_isn=92t_calling.url?="

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/
Modified=90E79DB02707BE01B1

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BE06F6.702643F0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 05:30:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA10805;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:30:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:30:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103213210.00834100 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 21:32:10 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Dore object frequency drop
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b2647b5c0e3b [208.228.222.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rwlFy2.0.le2.PLmFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24053
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 00:31 3/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>The ATCA observation notes a 1 turn/min rotation rate.

Just in case some don't know what to make of the rotation rate,
it is rotation in *phase*.  What I think this means is that the
phase of the signal from one side of the array is changing with
respect to the phase from the other side of the array (a baseline
of ~350metres we are told) at a rate of 360deg/min.  (this is
why the signal does not appear in the vector spectrum since over
a minute it averages to zero).

This phase shift indicates that the object emitting the carrier
is traversing across the aiming line of the telescope which has
been aimed accurately at EQ Pegasi and is tracking it.  We can
easily work out at what rate it is crossing since the wavelength
is ~0.21m and the baseline is 350m and it loses a wavelength
every minute - the angular rate is 0.21/350 radians/minute.
If the object continued traversing at this angular rate then
it would completely orbit the earth in just over a week.

Someone else can work out how far away from the earth such a
satellite would be to have an orbit time of a week but it is
not very far (in terms of interstellar distances!).

Of course it may not be orbiting but it is almost certainly
traversing the aim of the telescope at that rate (although I
think there is also a possiblity that it is significantly off
target and accelerating/decellerating enormously?).  Also the
frequency drifts could be due to doppler shift, but I suspect
the different frequencies on different days are different
signals.  Much better to look at just one recorded signal
(such as the Japanese one) and get the frequency drift rate
from the angle of the line and see if it is commensurate with
the velocity of the earths surface relative to an orbiting
satellite etc.  The frequency drift of Dore's traces are
rather weird - looks like either a very poor transmitter
that chirps as it turns on, or very poor local oscillator
that frequency pulls when the mixer detects a signal.  But
I am not an RF guy.  Maybe someone else can comment on that.

>Again, the rotation rate strikes me as something appropriate to an
>artificial object.  It would be good to try to get a distance on the
>object, maybe by very long baseline interferometry, or even a radar ping
>ranging form Aricebo.

I think Aricebo is out of action due to the recent hurricane?
But I think there is enough information on the web to have a
first attempt at estimating distances after making some
reasonable assumptions.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 06:33:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25891;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:32:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:32:08 -0800
Message-ID: <00b101be0736$53496560$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; Acid Rain and O/U Secret Ingredients?
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:28:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"jenHK.0.PK6.eFnFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24054
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

Good Stuff about Co-Deposition of D+ and Ag.

The use of an aqueous  Silver Nitrate Solution
for depositing silver on a Palladium cathode
using a Silver Anode is routine.

The NO3- ions combine with the silver on the
anode forming more AgNO3 which dissolves forming more Ag+ + NO3-.

The trick for "co-deposition" of D+ is proper
overvoltage pulsing.

An alternative would be to use a Pt Anode and add the AgNO3 to the D2O in
the cell in amounts that would make the Ag+ concentration comparable to the
D+ concentration with the ion mobility ratios taken into account.

Figure that one out, Horace.   :-)


Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 06:35:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26788;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:33:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:33:39 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103083221.007456f0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:32:21 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Diss quote
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981103074254.00ea4340 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"n0kaE.0.UY6.3HnFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24055
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:42 11/3/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>....This lie is shown by a graph ("fig.
>4") purporting to show the "potential energy of the hydrogen molecule in the
>ground electronic state." This clearly misrepresents, by a Ph.D. in
physics of
>the "Royal Society", that hydrogen in the "atomic state" is not in a ground
>state, but in an excited state.  In this 1965 physical chemistry text from
>England, the heat energy generated on recombination of the hydrogen atom is
>given as 109,000 cal./gram mole, then misrepresented as the "potential
energy" >of the "ground state hydrogen molecules" which have just formed!

I don't have your particular book in front of me but it is standard
practice to refer to De (109.5 kcal/mole) as the potential energy of the H2
molecule.  It is vitally important to realize that De is a NEGATIVE
quantity! It represents how much work (minus the ground state energy) you
have to do on the molecule to take it apart.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 06:49:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA31676;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:46:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:46:30 -0800
Message-ID: <363F14EE.32EC9F91 bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:36:30 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ET Signal
References: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net> <363EA67B.22@ca-ois.com> <363EA866.1422@ca-ois.com> <363EA978.6E93@ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_UqW52.0.nk7.6TnFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24056
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Jim Ostrowski wrote:

> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>  > I know that youse guys are tiring of this but this might explain the
>  > timing of a > possible hoax:
>
>  > http://www.setileague.org/press/pres9810.htm
>  >
>  >  Maybe someone has it in for Dr. SETI?
>  >
>  >
>   Shuch has already expressed the opinion that the reception report from
>   Dore is a hoax.
>
>   In view of this fact, I do not see how you can conclude that this is a
>   hoax with the objective of discrediting Shuch, if that is what you are
>   trying to say here.
>
>   The fact that he is scheduled to schmooze with his friends at the
>   government funded facilities (Jodrell) indicates to me that they may
> be
>   getting ready to circle the wagans.
>
>   Thank you for contributing, Terry. I, for one, think this subject is
>   interesting and appreciate your bringing this particular item to my
>   attention.
>
>   Jim Ostrowski

I drew no conclusions.  I said simply that *if* it were a hoax, it might be
intended to embarrass Dr. SETI when he visited England this week.

Now we see that the signal allegedly comes from "Project 415" a deep space
military probe.  Why does the military need a deep space probe?

Terry



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 06:51:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA00148;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:49:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:49:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103095210.007eace0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:52:10 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Acid Rain and O/U Secret Ingredients?
In-Reply-To: <00b101be0736$53496560$b2b4bfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dyPUr1.0.E2.gVnFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24057
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 07:28 AM 11/3/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>Horace wrote:
>>Good Stuff about Co-Deposition of D+ and Ag.
>
>The use of an aqueous  Silver Nitrate Solution
>for depositing silver on a Palladium cathode
>using a Silver Anode is routine.
>The NO3- ions combine with the silver on the
>anode forming more AgNO3 which dissolves forming more Ag+ + NO3-.
>
>The trick for "co-deposition" of D+ is proper
>overvoltage pulsing.
>An alternative would be to use a Pt Anode and add the AgNO3 to the D2O in
>the cell in amounts that would make the Ag+ concentration comparable to the
>D+ concentration with the ion mobility ratios taken into account.
>Figure that one out, Horace.   :-)


   If one uses a continuum electromechanics approach to 
electrochemistry rather than assuming equilibrium exists (1),
and minimizes bubble formation (2), then codeposition (3)
becomes much more interesting.

    Mitchell Swartz



1) Swartz, M., 1992, "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of 
Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", 
Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300.

2) Swartz, M., 1994, "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled 
To Reactions At An Electrode". Fusion Technology, 
96, 4T, 74-77

3) Swartz. M., 1997, "Codeposition Of Palladium And 
Deuterium", Fusion Technology, 32. 126-130 (1997)





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:20:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25251;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:18:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:18:24 -0800
Message-Id: <199811031617.LAA18741 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Secrecy on these discussion groups
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:19:24 -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: <"PX6D61.0.HA6.GpoFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24058
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill Beaty wrote:

> I look at the history of fringe-science inventions and I see a single
> large barrier to all progress: secrecy.  Secrecy on the part of
inventors. 
> Secrecy motivated by greed, ego, and a need for absolute control.  The
> government didn't suppress free energy, the inventors did it themselves
by
> refusing to part with any information which would allow others to verify
> their discoveries.  If "men in black" ever suppressed an invention, they
> were only able to do so because their victims had been hiding the
> discovery away.
>
Inventor's unwillingness to release information or allow independent
testing can be for other reasons, and I believe that it is imperative that
we empathize with the inventor to the degree necessary to understand what
may seem to be highly irrational motivations.  It is not easy to imagine
how each of us would respond if we happened to stumble unto a great
discovery that required a complex and subtle protocol to accomplish. 
Professional scientists are trained to act differently and they almost
always sign agreements that cause them to share their discoveries with
their employers.

It is a very human thing that causes people to act irrationally.  It is
irrationally optimistic to expect rational behavior from people under
conditions of intense experience.  Thus, we see a tendency to protect their
'baby' from the harsh criticisms they rightly know will befall them when
the data are released.  Naturally, then, they might try to develop it to a
point where it can win some market share, but this is usually much tougher
than it looks.  We see attempts to get it to a stage of development that
will give more impressive results.  The inventor does not have a team of
co-workers at his side to provide positive criticism and suggestions. 
Greed can be a factor, but all kinds of fallacies find fertile ground in
this soil.  On the other hand, as outsiders to this process, we want to
grab whatever good stuff we can.  That is naturally threatening.  We are
not willing to pay for it because we do not know if it is worth anything.

I have not been writing much about the specifics of what we are doing here
because I am not confident in the data we have and our small team's
criticism is adequate for now.

It is appropriate to make a plea for basic human respect for all parties
concerned, but keep in mind how frustrating it is to be left in the cold
when tantalizing claims invite belief.  Past a certain point that is always
a judgement call, failure to submit the device or idea for testing
indicates a crackpot.
 

Ed Wall
New Energy Research Laboratory

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:28:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27615;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:26:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:26:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b264d2647371 [208.228.222.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:32:24 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Dore object frequency drop
Resent-Message-ID: <"6ZrI32.0.Pl6.ewoFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24059
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:32 PM 11/3/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>At 00:31 3/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>The ATCA observation notes a 1 turn/min rotation rate.
>
>Just in case some don't know what to make of the rotation rate,
>it is rotation in *phase*.

OH, thanks for the clarification.  This stuff is all new to me.

>What I think this means is that the
>phase of the signal from one side of the array is changing with
>respect to the phase from the other side of the array (a baseline
>of ~350metres we are told) at a rate of 360deg/min.  (this is
>why the signal does not appear in the vector spectrum since over
>a minute it averages to zero).
>
>This phase shift indicates that the object emitting the carrier
>is traversing across the aiming line of the telescope which has
>been aimed accurately at EQ Pegasi and is tracking it.  We can
>easily work out at what rate it is crossing since the wavelength
>is ~0.21m and the baseline is 350m and it loses a wavelength
>every minute - the angular rate is 0.21/350 radians/minute.
>If the object continued traversing at this angular rate then
>it would completely orbit the earth in just over a week.

There is something very wrong with this picture.  The object, according to
three separate observers, has a relatively constant position.

27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
31-OCT-98 17:30 1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA - Australia)

Note also that Dore himself observed it on multiple days as well.

>
>Someone else can work out how far away from the earth such a
>satellite would be to have an orbit time of a week but it is
>not very far (in terms of interstellar distances!).

If in a circular orbit then it its distance is less than the distance to
the moon, which has a 28 day cycle.  Using Kepler's third law to compare
orbital distance Rs to the moon Rm, we have:

   Ts/Tm = 1/4 = (Rs/Rm)^3/2

   Rs = 0.25^2/3 Rm = (0.397)(23.9x10^4 mi) = 94,800 mi

   Rs = 150,000 Km

>
>Of course it may not be orbiting but it is almost certainly
>traversing the aim of the telescope at that rate (although I
>think there is also a possiblity that it is significantly off
>target and accelerating/decellerating enormously?).


They can't be very much off target, can they?  They pass the test of signal
loss after moving the dish off target a few degrees.


> Also the
>frequency drifts could be due to doppler shift, but I suspect
>the different frequencies on different days are different
>signals.


It seems unlikely the different signals are from different objects due to
the consistent location for multiple observations (now at least 5 over a
period of  more than one week).  This leaves the conclusion it is differing
signals from the same object.  Differing signals from the same object
leaves any kind of natural explanation pretty much out of the picture.
Therefore it is likely man made or alien.  There could be far out but
unlikely explanations relating to gravity waves from a perturbed sigularity
in a black hole, maybe due to a collision with a neutron star or another
black hole.


>Much better to look at just one recorded signal
>(such as the Japanese one) and get the frequency drift rate
>from the angle of the line and see if it is commensurate with
>the velocity of the earths surface relative to an orbiting
>satellite etc.  The frequency drift of Dore's traces are
>rather weird - looks like either a very poor transmitter
>that chirps as it turns on, or very poor local oscillator
>that frequency pulls when the mixer detects a signal.  But
>I am not an RF guy.  Maybe someone else can comment on that.


The drift rate does not appear to correlate with motion. The thing has been
steady for over a week, unless both the Tokyo observation and Dore's
observations are bogus.


>
>>Again, the rotation rate strikes me as something appropriate to an
>>artificial object.  It would be good to try to get a distance on the
>>object, maybe by very long baseline interferometry, or even a radar ping
>>ranging form Aricebo.
>
>I think Aricebo is out of action due to the recent hurricane?
>But I think there is enough information on the web to have a
>first attempt at estimating distances after making some
>reasonable assumptions.


Difficult to do. If we don't know the distance and don't know the
eccentricity it's tough to calculate orbital parameters.  Mulitple accurate
fixes need be taken.  We don't even know if the thing is in orbit around
the earth, the sun, or neither.

Here's another wild thought about the frequency drift.  It could be a
doppler shift on an object accelerating *away* from us, in which case the
thing has a very unusual drive.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:38:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA31863;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:37:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:37:35 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:34:25 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Murray's question
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811031136_MC2-5EEE-9541 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"3xYx_.0.nn7.E5pFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24060
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Horace Heffner writes:

     A billion temperature readings at one inappropriate point is a billion
     wrong and unsubstantiated readings.  If you look at a wrong clock a
     billion times a second you will get the wrong time of day very fast.

That is true, but irrelevant. If Blue had said that the reading was inaccurate
you (and he) might have a point, but he said there was only one reading, or in
some cases none: "Only problem is they did not measure the power input during
the boiloff! They could only estimate it on the basis of infrequently logged
measurements." This is based on his previous claim that they measure input
power only once every 6 minutes. The literature shows this claims is
incorrect.



     Sorry for you Jed that you don't find the debate thought provoking.

I have heard it all before, years ago. I do not see what could be thought
provoking about statements that are wrong by 6 to 8 orders of magnitude --
statements made by a person who obviously does not have a clue what the
literature says. The theory discussion is over my head, so I may be missing
some thought-provoking aspects of it, but I would be very wary of statements
about theory made by a person who makes such incredible errors and who cannot
grasp simple facts about the experiment in question.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:43:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32352;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:38:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:38:11 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:34:37 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Murray
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811031136_MC2-5EEE-9542 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"VkcO9.0.Qv7.p5pFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24061
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; Lynn Kurtz >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu

Lynn Kurtz writes:

     It is pretty clear that [Blue] is not convinced there *are* any
     "experimental results" in CF that are open to and can stand scrutiny.

Blue has never scrutinized results, except Pons and Fleischmann's, and his
claims about them are mistaken by 6 to 8 orders of magnitude, as I showed. He
refuses to look at or comment on work by McKubre, Oriani, Claytor, Will, Miles
or any of the others.


     Given the continuing lack of the hot water heater, it would appear to
     the casual observer (me, for example) that perhaps Blue is correct,
     Jed's tirades notwithstanding.

All cold fusion cells are hot water heaters, albeit small ones. If we were to
insist that a discovery must be made practical ten years after it is made, we
would have abandoned steam engines in 1708, which was four years before they
became practical and about a century before the first steam locomotive. We
would have given up on photography in 1737 (102 years before Daguerre)
incandescent lights in 1868 (ten years before Edison), and superconductivity 50
years before it was of any practical use. Transistors would have been
forgotten by 1934. We would throw out high temperature superconductors today.
Is this the kind of world Kurtz desires?

One more question for Kurtz: Do you hold the hot fusion program to this same
standard? They do not yet a practical water heater or generator. They have
spent much more time and money than we have, yet some cold fusion cells have
generated hundreds of times more energy than the best hot fusion reactor run
in history, at the PPPL. (Energy, not power: 8 MJ versus 300 MJ.)

The basic idea that Kurtz and others advocate is that scientific questions
should be judged by commercial success. Traditionally, in science, three
criteria used to judge the success or failure of an experiment: a well
designed experiment, widespread replications, and a high signal to noise
ratio. Please note, traditional science has never demanded that experiments be
simple, rugged or easy to reproduce. Indeed, many experiments are famous
precisely because they were so difficult to reproduce, like the Top Quark
findings. Kurtz is a radical who would throw away these standards and
substitute a new, unheard-of standard instead: commercial success. I am a
traditionalist. I think science works well now, and we should not make such
radical changes. I suspect Kurtz secretly agrees, and he applies this peculiar
new standard to cold fusion alone.


     I find the Murray posted debates to be a very interesting and
     educational exchange. I certainly hope Rich continues posting them.
     Shame on Jed, supposedly being a journalistic type, for wishing to
     suppress this debate.

I said nothing about "suppressing" anything. I expressed an opinion and I
pointed out that Blue is off by a factor of a million. I think the Blue debate
has no technical merit, and I see no point in listening to someone who cannot
tell the difference between 1 and 1,000,000. Rather than criticizing my
opinions, Kurtz should address the technical issues.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:45:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02484;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:42:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:42:49 -0800
Message-ID: <363F3B00.1ACB ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:18:56 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
References: <3.0.1.32.19981103153825.00aa37e0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oq81d2.0.fc.8ApFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24062
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Winterflood wrote:
> 
> An update on CSIRO's efforts :-
> 
> >This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
> >Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
> >found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
> >of the claimed detection.
> >
> >Details are on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/

The above statement is clearly misleading . When you actually visit the
site, the software screen dumps show a signal in the same general region
of EQ Peg but slightly lower in frequency (1.451 ghz instead of 1.453
ghz). The CSIRO conclusion is that this emission is from a satellite,
which is not "nothing". It has already been stated that the signal has
dropped in frequency and has moved slightly away from the originally
reported position.

Although the inference from these tests support the idea that the object
might be a satellite they in no way are conclusive that Dore is a
hoaxter. If the object has moved away from the original position then
it's orbit can be computed. Why has this not been done or even suggested
that a calculation of the orbit was underway?  

Jim Ostrowski


> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Dr. Ray P. Norris
> >Head of Astrophysics and Computing
> >CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 08:49:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06269;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:47:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:47:58 -0800
Message-ID: <001b01be0749$ade2c6c0$a31a010a ar91037.argis.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Dore object frequency drop [OFF Topic]
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:47:39 -0600
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 IAA06247
Resent-Message-ID: <"O4CL71.0.tX1.-EpFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24063
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Can someone explain the orbit? How can we even define an orbit since the satellite is always observed in the same position relative to the stellar background? Any orbit would move the satellite around the Earth, and across the stellar background, thereby 

changing the Right Acension and Declination coordinates? Right?

In the 2 week period the object has been observed, the Moon has travelled near 180 degrees across the stellar background. Whatever it is, it IS much farther away than the Moon.

I know this is off-topic, but it has me extremely puzzled.

Thanks,

Craig Haynie
Houston

-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Dore object frequency drop

[...Much Snipped...]


>>Someone else can work out how far away from the earth such a
>>satellite would be to have an orbit time of a week but it is
>>not very far (in terms of interstellar distances!).
>
>If in a circular orbit then it its distance is less than the distance to
>the moon, which has a 28 day cycle.  Using Kepler's third law to compare
>orbital distance Rs to the moon Rm, we have:
>
>   Ts/Tm = 1/4 = (Rs/Rm)^3/2
>
>   Rs = 0.25^2/3 Rm = (0.397)(23.9x10^4 mi) = 94,800 mi
>
>   Rs = 150,000 Km


[...Much Snipped...]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 09:16:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19298;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:14:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:14:33 -0800
Message-ID: <363F4272.61FA ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:50:42 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
References: <v01530501b26462572d6d [208.228.222.154]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qF1eD2.0.Oj4.vdpFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24064
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
>
> 
> Bill, how about a vote on limiting discussion to possible free energy
> producing devices or anomalies and making alien/UFO/MIB/SETI/(gov't
> conspiracy)/(global warming)/(melting ice pack) stuff off topic.  It
> appears there is a great deal of tolerance for off topic stuff as it is.

What an arrogant attitude. The assumption here is that the cold fusion
crowd here is just "tolerating" people interested in other areas of
science experiment/practice. 

Well you might want to consider looking at this from MY perspective, but
I doubt it.

I say:

Damn! Right I have been tolerant of the immense load of Cold Fusion crap
I get from this list every day. But there is a cute little device on
netscape called "delete flagged messages " which I just click on and
guess what! ,THEY ALL GO AWAY. Perhaps if you learned this little stupid
pet trick to delete the messages you aren't interested in 
Horace this wouldn't bother you so much. 

Yeah all we need is a vote and mob rule wins again.

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 09:24:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23489;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:23:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:23:32 -0800
Message-ID: <003a01be074d$dbfe39a0$a31a010a ar91037.argis.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <jimostr ca-ois.com>
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal [Off Topic]
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:17:31 -0600
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 JAA23471
Resent-Message-ID: <"GlY4r.0.xk5.JmpFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24065
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal


[...Snipped...]

>Although the inference from these tests support the idea that the object
>might be a satellite they in no way are conclusive that Dore is a
>hoaxter. If the object has moved away from the original position then
>it's orbit can be computed. Why has this not been done or even suggested
>that a calculation of the orbit was underway? 

Actually, no one, other than the ATNF, has reported this signal at any other position, that I know of. In the past 2 weeks, the signal has been observed in the same relative position. Given that the Moon has moved nearly 180 degrees in this time period, d

oesn't it seem more likely that amateur radio telescopes don't have the accuracy to pin-point the position as well as a major facility like ATNF. 

For it to be an orbit, it would have to be much farther away than the Moon. How many satellites could this be? How many satellites have we put into Solar orbits, that would cross a declination of almost 20 degrees.?

And, as long as I'm off-topic, I'd like to speculate: Is there any advantage to putting a navigation beacon into space, which would vary frequency over time, at a known rate? If someone knows the pattern of such a frequency variation, then wouldn't they b

e able to pinpoint their exact position from the signal source? Would this have any advantage over star-triangulation?

Craig Haynie


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 09:37:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27215;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:35:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:35:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199811031735.LAA19044 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:34:12 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
Resent-Message-ID: <"bktD-1.0.9f6.yxpFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24066
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 10:22 PM 11/2/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
>[snip]
>>
>>Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> To: Vortex
>>>
>>> I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic.
>>
>>We have already been around this bend, Jed. Cold fusion science, if it
>>can be called a science, is not the only topic suitable for discussion
>>on vortex.
>>
>>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
>>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
>
>I am dismayed to discover that Jim O. is right about this.
>
>Let's look at the charter: "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.)  Skeptics beware, the topics
>also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of
>excess energy in "free energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity
>generation and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims."
>
>It appears SETI stuff and all manner of alien/UFO/MIB discussion would fall
>into the "all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims" category, although I
>suspect this  may have orginally implied "all sorts of supposedly crackpot
>free energy claims."  Since this is a privately owned public list, with
>Bill Beaty the owner, I guess we should ask Bill Beaty what this means.
>Well, what does it mean Bill?
>
>Bill, how about a vote on limiting discussion to possible free energy
>producing devices or anomalies and making alien/UFO/MIB/SETI/(gov't
>conspiracy)/(global warming)/(melting ice pack) stuff off topic.  It
>appears there is a great deal of tolerance for off topic stuff as it is.
>This would only provide a basis for complaint for those who simply have had
>enough dilution.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{You may not have noticed, Horace, but the free energy fare is presently
rather limited. In any case, speaking for myself, I detest moderated
groups, and am posting here only because Bill Beaty has demonstrated a
commitment to a hands-off policy. If this group goes over to censorship by
majority rule, then I am outa here. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 09:40:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27246;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:35:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:35:58 -0800
Message-Id: <199811031735.LAA19050 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:34:13 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
Resent-Message-ID: <"NwrDs.0.cf6.-xpFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24067
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>John -
>
>>An update on CSIRO's efforts :-
>>
>>>This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
>>>Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
>>>found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
>>>of the claimed detection.

***{I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the larger the
radiotelescope, the narrower the beam. What that means, practically
speaking, is that Paul Dore's claim cannot be narrowed down to EQ Pegasi,
due to his small dish and consequent very wide beam, which I estimated the
other day to be about 84 arc minutes, or 1.4 degrees. This means that
CSIRO's comment, above, is virtually self-refuting: "30 times the
sensitivity" means that they can detect a much weaker signal than Paul
Dore, which is undoubtedly due almost entirely to their use of a larger
dish. Unfortunately, the larger the dish that we use at a given frequency,
the narrower the beam width and, thus, the smaller the area of the sky that
we examine when we are pointed at given coordinates. (The beam area of a
radiotelescope is inversely proportional to the square of the radius of the
dish.) This means that if we take the above statement at face value, their
non-replication is utterly meaningless.

What these institutional parasites need to do is accept the fact that the
new kid on the block--the "amateur" radio astronomer with a small,
privately owned dish--is a serious player in their game, and deserves to be
treated with respect. Their information monopoly is in ruins, and they no
longer have the power to dismiss these sorts of claims with a cursory
examination and a contemptuous wave of the hand. Paul Dore's credibility
may be on the line here, but theirs is on the line as well. If they do not
want to come out of this looking like assholes, they need to get serious:
do a precise calculation of the area covered by the beam of Paul Dore's
dish, and do a careful search of the entire area before dismissing his
claim. That means they need to come down off of their high horses and
actually talk to the guy, find out what kind of equipment he is using, etc.
In short: they need to treat him with respect. Unfortunately, there is not
a snowball's chance in hell that they will do that. They have enjoyed their
information monopoly, at taxpayer expense, for too many years. Their
attitudes are ingrained and not subject to change: they tell us the way it
is, and we believe it. Period. *That's why they have to go.*

--Mitchell Jones}***

>>>
>>>Details are on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/

***{I checked out the above URL. Here is a snippet taken from their report:

       Position observed: (J2000) RA 23 31 49.51, Dec 19 56 16.8
       Resolution: 4096 channels over 4 MHz bandwidth, centred on 1453 MHz
       Time of observation: 98 Nov 2, UT 10:23 - 10:42
       10s integration time,
       All six antennas of the ATCA, equivalent to 54-m diameter antenna
       Mr. Dore's claimed detection frequency was 1453.07512 Mhz plus
       or minus about +400 Hz (although subsequent amateur "confirmation"
       appears to be at 1453.833600 MHz)

>From the above, I note that their array is equivalent to a 54 meter dish,
which gives it a beam width of roughly B = 4000(21/5400) = 15.6 arc minutes
= .26 degrees. Paul Dore's beam width, on the other hand, is roughly 1.4
degrees, as noted above. That means when he pointed his rig at the EQ Peg
coordinates, he received all fairly strong signals within a radius of .7
degrees of those coordinates, whereas when ATCA pointed their array at the
same coordinates, they picked up even very feeble signals, but only within
.13 degree of the coordinates. His beam area was pi(.7)^2 = 1.54 deg-sq,
and theirs was pi(.13)^2 = .053 deg-sq, which means he examined an area
roughly 29 times as great as the area which they examined. This means that,
as I expected, 29/30ths of their gain in sensitivity relative to Paul Dore
came because they used a larger dish. Their non-confirmation, in short, is
utterly meaningless. Their willingness to deny his claim on the basis of
what they did makes precisely as much sense as stating that a lost contact
lens is not anywhere on a football field, after having carefully searched
for it from one goal line to a bit past the 3 yard line! It is a joke, but
it isn't funny.

--Mitchell Jones}***



>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>>>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>>>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility
>
>The alleged Japanese guy got it at 1452.187, now it's down to 1451.8. I
>hope whoever's on board that thing is wearing their seatbelts, that's got
>to be some deceleration.
>
>The geocities website and the Dore claims are bogus. I wonder what this new
>data means.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 09:54:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03072;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:53:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:53:53 -0800
Message-ID: <363F42F5.ACFF7A4B ro.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:52:54 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
References: <199811021603_MC2-5ECA-49CB compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"uNm2H2.0.sl.mCqFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24068
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Jed Rothwell wrote:

> To: Vortex
>
> I know nothing about radio astronomy, but noticed that Michel Jones says
> privately owned antenna larger than one meter are rare. I recall the first
> radio astronomy antenna was constructed by a British scientist in his
> backyard. Would be possible to modify a large satellite TV receiver for this
> purpose? I suppose you would need improved electronics and a tracking
> mechanism. Most of these antennas are fixed, but some can be pointed to
> different satellites by remote control, so they must have tracking gear. I
> have seen some large ones out in the countryside. They may not even make the
> big ones anymore, now that the pizza box size ones are available. The last
> time I took the train through rural Japan I saw the small ones on practically
> every house.
>
> - Jed


Jed,
I, too, know nothing about radio astronomy.  I have, however, noticed an
increasingly large number of 8 to 12 foot diameter satellite dishes set on the
curb for the trash collector.  Maybe the newer technology of 18 inch dishes will
allow the use of "recycled" dishes for the amateur radio astronomer.  Out with
the old, in with the new ;)

--
Regards,
Patrick V. Reavis


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 10:42:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15660;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811031819.MAA20394 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:18:34 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"O6UGJ2.0.cq3.KjqFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24069
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 10-31-98 I sent off a post which included the following:

"Of course, the best spin control effort still looks to me like one based
on a cover story: simply lie and claim that Vandenberg launched a secret
military deep space probe several years ago, and that this signal is coming
from it. If anyone asks what the military is doing mucking around in the
outer solar system, simply say the reasons are classified, but have nothing
to do with aliens. The only people who would be able to refute such a story
would be in the military, and could be ordered to keep their mouths shut
for "national security" reasons. By not denying that the signal exists or
that it is from an intelligent source, such a response would cut the ground
from under the feet of Paul Dore and anyone else who verifies his claim. In
order to believe that ET's are out there, you have to take that last step
across the chasm of disbelief, and actually accept the fact that virtually
everything the government says on this topic is a lie. Since the number of
people who are sufficiently independent minded to do that is vanishingly
small, they can be labelled kooks and ignored. It's game, set, and match.
Those who rule us win, and we lose--as usual."

Today, 11-03-98, Paul Dore posted the following:

"Monday, the second of November has got to be one of the worst 24 hours
I've ever experienced.
Here is a brief synopsis of the events that ensued."

6:00am I arrive at work, do some rather routine things and cull overnight
data.I have a pretty
uneventful day, then around noon I receive a call from the two astronomers
stating they would not
be at the press conference at that I was 'essentially, on my own.' - 'Fine
then.' I replied, and they
apologized and hung up. Next my supervisor rings me up to tell me that I
was to cease my
expirement immediately. This was quite strange because he had been
supportive ever since the
news broke. As per his request I began the job of taking down the feedhorn
and disconnecting the
receiver and packing the entire kit up. The rest of the day passed without
incident and I began
thinking once again if I made a mistake, if I was confused by something
earthly or a natural
phenomena. I began questioning myself over and over in hopes that I could
find something I
missed."

7:00pm I arrive home to find three gentlemen in my residence. My wife Helen
has the look of
sheer terror upon her face. It turns one of the men was from the Government
Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) at Cheltenham, the other was from RAF Feltwell and the
third from the
American National Security Agency. They asked if we could speak in private.
I was reluctant but
agreed and Helen and the kids left the room. Over the course of nearly two
hours they explained
to me that what I had discovered was not extra-terrestrial in nature but
most definately
interesting. It turns out that what I discovered was infact a classified
intelligence satellite having to
do with something known as Project 415. I am being very careful here so as
not to violate the
security oath they made me sign which states that should I disclose any
further detail on this
subject I will be subject to prosecution under the terms of the Official
Secrets Act. I was told
basically that the signals I received were mistaken and that I should not
talk about this matter in
detail. They gave me a fair amount of information to convince me, again the
details I cannot go
into but I am satisfied that what I picked up was infact a secret deep
space satellite for purposes of
national and international (it seems) security. After the three men were
convinced that I believed
them they had me sign this legal document that I cited above and left. I
watched as two of the men
walked down the road one way and the American walk in an opposite direction
(presumably to
their vehicles).

So there you have it and I wish this were not true. I had visions of going
down in history as being
the first human being to detect signs of other intelligence in the universe
and while I found
intelligence alright, it certainly wasn't the kind of intelligence I hoped
to discover. I am a bit
depressed now, though that could have as much to do with the weather. My
family and I have
decided that I should not pursue this line of research any further. Should
I ever discover anything
else strange in the course of my work I will be very careful about
revealing it.

Best Regards,

Paul Dore

***{So it is game, set, and match, as I predicted. Our masters, who have
the power, win as usual, and we lose. As usual, we have only one choice:
the choice to worship them as gods and treat everything they say as the
truth, or the choice to see them for what they are and disbelieve virtually
everything they say. With regard to Paul Dore's story, above, this choice
boils down to something very simple: do we believe the government story
that the EQ Pegasi signal is from "a classified intelligence satellite
having to do with something known as Project 415," or do we simply treat
that as more bullshit from the Men in Black, and conclude that this is a
SETI hit which is a bit closer to Earth than any of us ever imagined? That
is a matter which we all have to decide for ourselves. In any case, I have
no desire to look down the barrel of a gun, and so I will say no more about
this subject. Later, slaves. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 10:41:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26141;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:39:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:39:50 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:37:05 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811031338_MC2-5EF1-7313 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"a7hgI3.0.BO6.rtqFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24070
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Patrick V. Reavis writes:

    I have, however, noticed an increasingly large number of 8 to 12 foot
    diameter satellite dishes set on the curb for the trash collector. Maybe
    the newer technology of 18 inch dishes will allow the use of "recycled"
    dishes for the amateur radio astronomer.

Maybe you could pick up ten of them and make a Very Small Very Large Array
(VSVLA). Or maybe you get 10,000 amateurs to pick up one each and coordinate
via Internet? Like the way people have been extracting huge prime numbers
lately.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 10:53:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00855;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:52:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:52:31 -0800
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: <363F2268.4F8F74DD css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:34:00 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Jed's comments
References: <1.5.4.32.19981103055324.00ea8d84 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Tiid1.0.CD.l3rFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24071
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> we have from our government:
>         1. No geophysical icecap crisis analysis
>         2. No admission or offer of technology needed
>         3. Government can fix problem but will not.

Dennis, ever watch CSPAN?  I am often suprised most don't need velcro straps on
their shoes.  If you are looking for an organized logical effort to do anything,
don't look to the government.  They couldn't all get in line by height for a
fire drill let alone conspire to keep a secret.  As for fixing things, as far as
I can recall, I don't remember any government ever truly fixing ANYTHING.  The
brush stroke is typically too big and usually winds up only making a bigger
mess.

BTW, I have no doubt a report on the situation does exist, but it's been safely
filed in triplicate for some future archeologist to find and wonder about.  8^)



-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 11:16:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11278;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:14:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:14:42 -0800
Message-ID: <363F5605.8F0C60C4 ariel.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:14:13 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
References: <199811031819.MAA20394 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"R4Soo.0.2m2.XOrFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24072
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> ***{So it is game, set, and match, as I predicted. Our masters, who have
> the power, win as usual, and we lose. As usual, we have only one choice:
> the choice to worship them as gods and treat everything they say as the
> truth, or the choice to see them for what they are and disbelieve virtually
> everything they say. With regard to Paul Dore's story, above, this choice
> boils down to something very simple: do we believe the government story
> that the EQ Pegasi signal is from "a classified intelligence satellite
> having to do with something known as Project 415," or do we simply treat
> that as more bullshit from the Men in Black, and conclude that this is a
> SETI hit which is a bit closer to Earth than any of us ever imagined? That
> is a matter which we all have to decide for ourselves. In any case, I have
> no desire to look down the barrel of a gun, and so I will say no more about
> this subject. Later, slaves. --Mitchell Jones}***

Forgive me for perpetuating this off topic thread a little further but -

Leaving aside for the moment the very real possibility that this is a
hoax perpetrated around an alleged Paul Dore, the attitude of 'trust
nothing from the government' is no better than trusting everything from
the government.  It's never that black and white - real people make up
the government, some good, some bad.  Conspiracy theory is one of the
most complex and sticky matters you can subscribe to - not at all as
simplistic as to say they're all out to get you.

It's a knee jerk reaction to hate the government, but like it or not,
there are good people doing good jobs in the government, which is why
you have running water, nice paved roads, peace of mind, etc.

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 11:27:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15886;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:26:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:26:06 -0800
Message-ID: <012401be075f$64e0e360$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:22:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"BP5wf2.0.8u3.EZrFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24073
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!


Terren wrote:

>
>Forgive me for perpetuating this off topic thread a little further but -
>
>It's a knee jerk reaction to hate the government, but like it or not,
>there are good people doing good jobs in the government, which is why
>you have running water, nice paved roads, peace of mind, etc.

What are you? Some kind of Radical?  :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Terren
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 11:28:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA16229;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:26:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:26:53 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b264ffa0143e [208.228.222.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:32:58 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
Resent-Message-ID: <"uP5iE2.0.Qz3.zZrFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24074
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>***{You may not have noticed, Horace, but the free energy fare is presently
>rather limited. In any case, speaking for myself, I detest moderated
>groups, and am posting here only because Bill Beaty has demonstrated a
>commitment to a hands-off policy. If this group goes over to censorship by
>majority rule, then I am outa here. --Mitchell Jones}***

Actually this is a "lightly moderated" list.  When things get out of hand
Bill B. does moderate.  Since he owns the list he can do as he pleases with
it.  In the past he has opened up commment on proposed changes.

In effect, moderation has already happened because (1) there is a charter
and (2) on occasion some topics have been sent to vortex-B, which has no
restrictions on topic.  One example of a topic banished to vortex-B was
Newman's motor.

There is a huge difference between censorship and choice of topic and rules
of behaviour.

Here is the current description of vortex-L from
<http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html>:

                       Vortex-L Discussion Group

  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.


Here are the rules from when I last subscribed:

*****************************************************************************
                         WELCOME TO VORTEX-L
*****************************************************************************

WARNING: AT LEAST READ THE RULES BELOW!

The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional
research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous
energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and
Potapov among others.)  Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any
anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free
energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity generation and detection,
and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims.  Please see the rules below.
This is a public, lightly-moderated list.  Interested parties are welcome
to subscribe.  PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE SUBSCRIBING.  There is no
charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for
suggested donation.)


**************************************************************************
Vortex-L Rules:

1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
   making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  If you
   cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway.  If you
   would like to give more, please do!  Direct your check to the
   moderator, address above.  Any help you can give is sincerely
   appreciated.

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.)

3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
   exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  If you wish to
   start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
   initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
   IMMEDIATELY.  Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
   received email.  Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John
   Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing.

4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the
   ENTIRE message in your reply.  Always edit it a bit and delete
   something.  The more you delete, the less traffic overload.  The entire
   message should really only be included if: (A) you are replying to a
   message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point
   reply to many parts of a message.  Many vortex users must pay by the
   kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant
   messages are irritating and expensive.  So, when including a quoted
   message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better.

5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC
   line of your messages to vortex-L.  In the past this has caused
   thread leakage between different list and redundant messages as
   replies from subscribers go to both lists.  It's OK to manually forward
   mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC line
   has only vortex-L and no other list.

6. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated.  While not illegal
   yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the
   Unwritten Rules of the Internet.  Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail
   will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team.  ;)
   Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is acceptable.

   - Bill B.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 11:42:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21327;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 12:24:53 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Murray
In-reply-to: <199811031136_MC2-5EEE-9542 compuserve.com>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199811031924.MAA21967 smtp2.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: <"Tu9Sd1.0.9D5.1mrFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24075
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:34 AM 11/3/98 -0500, you wrote:

>One more question for Kurtz: Do you hold the hot fusion program to this same
>standard? They do not yet a practical water heater or generator. They have
>spent much more time and money than we have, yet some cold fusion cells have
>generated hundreds of times more energy than the best hot fusion reactor run
>in history, at the PPPL. (Energy, not power: 8 MJ versus 300 MJ.)
>

They do have repeatable experiments and theoretical principles on which
they are based.

>The basic idea that Kurtz and others advocate is that scientific questions
>should be judged by commercial success.

I did not advocate any such thing. I said that the continuing lack of a hot
water heater in CF might lead the casual  observer to conclude that perhaps
Blue is correct in his criticizms. For example, that is what I tend to
believe at this point.

> Traditionally, in science, three
>criteria used to judge the success or failure of an experiment: a well
>designed experiment, widespread replications, and a high signal to noise
>ratio.

A nice description of what is missing in CF.

>Kurtz is a radical

I am?

 who would throw away these standards

I would?

>and substitute a new, unheard-of standard instead: commercial success. I am a
>traditionalist. I think science works well now, and we should not make such
>radical changes. I suspect Kurtz secretly agrees, and he applies this
peculiar
>new standard to cold fusion alone.
>

LOL! I have to frame this post. No one ever called me a radical before. Do
you know me?


>>     Shame on Jed, supposedly being a journalistic type, for wishing to
>>     suppress this debate.
>
>I said nothing about "suppressing" anything. 

Well, yes, I admit that in this post you did not say that. But you have
requested many times before that Rich quit cross-posting Blue's remarks.

--Lynn


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 12:12:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06632;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:10:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:10:38 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103151153.007f2c10 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:11:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Murray
In-Reply-To: <199811031924.MAA21967 smtp2.asu.edu>
References: <199811031136_MC2-5EEE-9542 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vwvfq2.0.Xd1.-CsFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24076
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




At 12:24 PM 11/3/98 -0700, Lynn Kurtz wrote:

>I did not advocate any such thing. I said that the continuing lack of a hot
>water heater in CF might lead the casual  observer to conclude that perhaps
>Blue is correct in his criticizms. For example, that is what I tend to
>believe at this point.


  And that belief might not be correct.
Many CF experiments have made small (or larger) water heaters;
and possibly with more reproducibility that hot fusion.  

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

>> Traditionally, in science, three
>>criteria used to judge the success or failure of an experiment: a well
>>designed experiment, widespread replications, and a high signal to noise
>>ratio.
>A nice description of what is missing in CF.


   The criteria - probably an optimal to strive for -
are correct.
   These have occured for cold fusion (CF).  

   What has NOT occured with CF is that more of the skeptics 
closely examine what the literature actually indicates.
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 12:12:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06847;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:11:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:11:15 -0800
Message-ID: <363F6337.BF7FBEF1 ariel.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:10:31 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
References: <012401be075f$64e0e360$b2b4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kR4Qs2.0.vg1.ZDsFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24077
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
> 
> Terren wrote:
> 
> >
> >Forgive me for perpetuating this off topic thread a little further but -
> >
> >It's a knee jerk reaction to hate the government, but like it or not,
> >there are good people doing good jobs in the government, which is why
> >you have running water, nice paved roads, peace of mind, etc.
> 
> What are you? Some kind of Radical?  :-)
> 
> Regards,  Frederick
> >
> >Terren
> >

Seems to be a lot of that goin' round these days. :-)

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 12:45:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20866;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:44:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:44:01 -0800
Message-ID: <363F6B33.9C2042BD GroupZ.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:44:35 -0500
From: sno <sno GroupZ.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
References: <199811031338_MC2-5EF1-7313 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0ykdR3.0.q55.GisFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24078
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Their is actually as group trying to set this up, do
not have their site right off hand...using old satellite
dishes...their are now approximately 63 people who have
these dishes set up, they coordinate by internet, and 
would like to have, I think, 5000....which would cover
all the sky by their calculations...they also have 
developed computer software to go with the dishes...
sorry that's all I remember...maybe someone can point to 
the site....steve

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
> To: Vortex
> 
> Patrick V. Reavis writes:
> 
>     I have, however, noticed an increasingly large number of 8 to 12 foot
>     diameter satellite dishes set on the curb for the trash collector. Maybe
>     the newer technology of 18 inch dishes will allow the use of "recycled"
>     dishes for the amateur radio astronomer.
> 
> Maybe you could pick up ten of them and make a Very Small Very Large Array
> (VSVLA). Or maybe you get 10,000 amateurs to pick up one each and coordinate
> via Internet? Like the way people have been extracting huge prime numbers
> lately.
> 
> - Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 13:11:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28534;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:00:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:00:53 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:57:22 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Remarks by Kurtz
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811031559_MC2-5EF1-7A5C compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"9WeuQ3.0.mz6.4ysFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24079
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; Lynn Kurtz >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu

Comparing CF to HF, Lynn Kurtz claims:

     They do have repeatable experiments and theoretical principles on which
     they are based.

We have repeatable experiments too. Ours are far cheaper and easier to repeat
than the PPPL. Ed Storms and many others have repeated them working alone,
with less than $100,000 worth of equipment. Read the literature, review the
work at Los Alamos, China Lake and Mitsubishi and you will learn about it. We
also have theories developed by people like Schwinger and Hagelstein, but I
know nothing about them.

I said that the basic idea that Kurtz and others advocate is that scientific
questions should be judged by commercial success. He responds:

     I did not advocate any such thing. I said that the continuing lack of a
     hot water heater in CF might lead the casual  observer to conclude that
     perhaps Blue is correct in his criticizms.

Why? In 1868 incandescent lights had been widely replicated by leading
electrical engineers for over ten years, yet experts said they were
impractical and there was no way they could be commercialized. The experts had
good reasons for saying this: The lights could not be wired in parallel, so
the entire world supply of copper would not have sufficed for one installation
in downtown Manhattan. Also the lights lasted only a few hours because of
insufficient vacuums and poor materials. Until 1878 the incandescent light was
a useless laboratory curiosity despite 20 years of intense research. By your
logic, this would lead a casual observer to think that the lights did not
exist!

Look, this is really simple. I do not think I have mis-characterized or
misunderstood your assertion. You should explain to the readers here why 1000+
peer reviewed scientific papers from leading laboratories is not sufficient
proof of a scientific claim, and why we should instead look for a hot water
heater, or a working installation of incandescent lights, or a Tokamak power
reactor, or what-have-you.


     For example, that is what I tend to believe at this point.

Yes, obviously you do. I think you owe us a rigorous argument in support of
your views. I mean, you owe us if you want keep the conversation interesting
and challenging. Justify your assertion in a step by step argument with
reference to historical examples and the peer-reviewed scientific literature
on cold fusion. That is what I have done. It is your turn! Otherwise you make
an empty assertion -- a dead-end argument that cannot be proved, disproved, or
disputed.

I wrote: "Traditionally, in science, three criteria used to judge the success
or failure of an experiment: a well designed experiment, widespread
replications, and a high signal to noise
ratio." Kurtz responds:

     A nice description of what is missing in CF.

So you say, but the literature proves you are wrong. Just making an assertion
does not make it true, after all. Consider the three criteria:

Well designed experiments. The techniques and instruments for isoperibolic
calorimetry were perfected by J. P. Joule in 1848. Flow calorimetry reached
its present state of the art around 1910. If you think these experiments are
not well designed, please list five reasons. What exactly did Joule do wrong,
or why have the CF scientists failed to replicate his techniques? Be specific!

Widespread replications. 1000+ papers, 150 solid replications by the end of
1990. It is in literature. Your assertion cannot make these papers disappear.

High signal to noise. Much higher than hot fusion! McKubre, Pons and
Fleischmann and the other leading labs are better than 50 sigma in *dozens* of
experiments, with many different instruments. That's for calorimetry. Some of
the nuclear effects, like tritium, are also at a very high s/n ratio. That is
why, for example, Claytor reduced the mass of palladium in his experiment by a
factor of 100 (he reduced the cathode by 10 on both sides). He explained that
the smaller mass was enough to generate high levels and the rest did not
significantly improve the s/n ratio. If you know of a mistake in the Los
Alamos tritium work, it is time for you to tell us what it is. (Dick Blue
never did and he never will.) I cannot address this, but others can, or we can
ask Claytor to step in and explain. He will welcome carefully thought-out
critiques. He has survived the internal peer review at Los Alamos year after
year, which is much more rigorous than the typical journal review.

I say you are a radical who would throw away these standards. You respond:

     I would?

Yes, you would and you have. Or if not, you will go to the library, read about
McKubre, Miles, Oriani and the others, and give us good solid, detailed
technical reasons to doubt their results. Not hot air, not unsupported
assertions, and not absurd ideas like Blue's, that they only measured input
once. Get serious. If you are a traditionalist who believes in the scientific
method then you will confine yourself to serious, scientific, technical
critiques.


     LOL! I have to frame this post. No one ever called me a radical before.
     Do you know me?

Do you know the literature? Yes or no? If you do not, and you have not
carefully read and reread McKubre, then you are condemning a field of science
about which you know nothing. That makes you a radical by my standards.

Don't just frame this post: answer it. Tell Us What You Know.

I said nothing about "suppressing" Blue's remarks, but only that they are
incorrect by 6 orders of magnitude. Kurtz refuses to address that fact, and he
writes instead:

     Well, yes, I admit that in this post you did not say that. But you have
     requested many times before that Rich quit cross-posting Blue's remarks.

Yes, that was a polite request, repeated by others here including Bill Beaty,
who runs the forum. Please note:

* Murray ignored the requests; he continues to post. We stopped asking. (I
installed a filter.)

* The documents are available on sci.physics.fusion. We would not be
suppressing them by leaving them out here. We would merely avoid duplication
and wasted bandwidth. Murray can always post a message here describing the
availability of the messages.

* Anyone can recall s.p.f. messages with DejaVu. It is easier than reading the
Vortex archives.

All in all, I do not see how my request can be construed as "suppression." We
ask only that Blue or others speak for themselves and post here directly if
they wish to participate. We hope they might also respond to polite, carefully
worded critiques of their statements. And, as a matter of fact, this message
happens to be a polite, academic, careful response to your posting, and I
think you should participate with a little more rigor, and address some of the
technical issues I have raised. For example, if, as you say, the experiments
are not well designed, please tell us *specifically, point by point* what is
wrong with the designs. We do not need a 20 page thesis, but you could write a
page or two. Don't bother with the marginal experiments. We all agree they are
poorly designed. Stick to the top 200 experiments from the peer reviewed
literature.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 13:56:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02673;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <363F6ADD.20E6D3C4 css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:43:09 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Are You Current?
References: <v01530500b264ffa0143e [208.228.222.36]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7b0Hi.0.hf.PktFs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24080
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> Here is the current description of vortex-L from
> <http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html> :
> 
> 1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
>    making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  If you
>    cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway.  If you
>    would like to give more, please do!  Direct your check to the
>    moderator, address above.  Any help you can give is sincerely
>    appreciated.

Time again to ante up ladies and gents.  Free is the goal not the reality:
  <http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html>
  
Good thing the dues aren't based on the number of characters posted!  HA!  That
would certainly keep the discussions short and to the point.....  8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 14:22:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA31652;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:19:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:19:17 -0800
Message-Id: <363F75EE.95A71C10 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 23:30:22 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ET Signal
References: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net> <363EA67B.22@ca-ois.com> <363EA866.1422@ca-ois.com> <363EA978.6E93@ca-ois.com> <363F14EE.32EC9F91@bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cBtgd1.0.Uk7.a5uFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24081
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Now we see that the signal allegedly comes from "Project 415" a deep space
> military probe.  Why does the military need a deep space probe?
> 
> Terry

A criteria may help to clarify the situation:

Is this signal is in a reserved frequency band belong to military or to public/ science activities, or it is found in a unassigned never used frequencies on satellite communication of any nature?

If it is belong to military, Gov may right to order to not listen the signal. If it is found in "free" band, rise the question why top-secret military satellite use this unassigned band. (I assume the have some bands exclusively assigned to them)
But an radio astronomer plus an communication expert  should aware such band assignments and not do mistake to capture a signal used on assigned satellite communication band.
 
If this range is never used by any satellite communication, the only reason could be scientific purpose, not military (except sci-mil :) ). So later cases lead to gov cover-up of ET signal. But the instant response from gov imply it may really belong to t

hem.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 14:52:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13398;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:48:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:48:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199811032248.QAA27204 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:46:59 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"iLYi53.0.BH3.KXuFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24082
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> ***{So it is game, set, and match, as I predicted. Our masters, who have
>> the power, win as usual, and we lose. As usual, we have only one choice:
>> the choice to worship them as gods and treat everything they say as the
>> truth, or the choice to see them for what they are and disbelieve virtually
>> everything they say. With regard to Paul Dore's story, above, this choice
>> boils down to something very simple: do we believe the government story
>> that the EQ Pegasi signal is from "a classified intelligence satellite
>> having to do with something known as Project 415," or do we simply treat
>> that as more bullshit from the Men in Black, and conclude that this is a
>> SETI hit which is a bit closer to Earth than any of us ever imagined? That
>> is a matter which we all have to decide for ourselves. In any case, I have
>> no desire to look down the barrel of a gun, and so I will say no more about
>> this subject. Later, slaves. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Forgive me for perpetuating this off topic thread a little further but -
>
>Leaving aside for the moment the very real possibility that this is a
>hoax perpetrated around an alleged Paul Dore, the attitude of 'trust
>nothing from the government' is no better than trusting everything from
>the government.

***{Nope. To find the truth about an issue, you must focus on the facts and
the arguments pro and con as they relate to that issue, and, via a careful
search for contradictions, cull the wheat from the chaff. The decision to
trust nothing from the government frees you up so you can do that.
--Mitchell Jones}***

It's never that black and white - real people make up
>the government, some good, some bad.

***{True. But the people at the top, virtually without exception, are evil
incarnate, and that fact determines the impact which government is having
on the world. The Dark Ages were the first Age of Evil, and we are now
standing on the threshold of the second. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Conspiracy theory is one of the
>most complex and sticky matters you can subscribe to - not at all as
>simplistic as to say they're all out to get you.

***{I never said that, and I do not subscribe to any of the popular
variants of conspiracy theory. The situation, in my view, is far, far worse
than the proponents of those theories imagine, though this is not a topic
that I am willing to discuss here (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Tugging on superman's cape is an activity which I try to leave to others.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>It's a knee jerk reaction to hate the government, but like it or not,
>there are good people doing good jobs in the government, which is why
>you have running water, nice paved roads, peace of mind, etc.

***{Citizens of the United States had water, paved roads, and peace of mind
back during the times when their elected officials abided by the
constitution, so you can hardly characterize those items as a gift bestowed
on us by the brutal tyranny that rules us now. What you don't seem to
recognize is that the impact of government is determined by the moral
stature of the people at the top. It is they, not the peons at the lower
levels, who speak for and control the actions of "the government."
Unfortunately, in recent times virtually every official act of such people
has been evil, and virtually every official utterance by them, on virtually
any topic, has been a lie or tantamount to a lie. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Terren


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 15:08:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA22187;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:07:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:07:26 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:03:50 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate with Blue
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811031806_MC2-5EF7-C985 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"dzxHp1.0.bQ5.jouFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24083
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gene:

>>  Does he know nothing about this
>subject? Is he incapable of distinguishing between facts and fiction?

Simple answer:   No.

Gene Mallove <<

I think you meant "YES" <G>

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 15:32:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA30871;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:30:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:30:26 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <363F91F5.A18BB8F1 css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:29:57 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Astronomy Resources on the Internet via ICE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ApkIF.0.DY7.I8vFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24084
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://www.englib.cornell.edu/ice/lists/astronomy.html
-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 15:56:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07701;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:52:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:52:45 -0800
Message-ID: <017601be0784$9e65c5e0$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: OFF TOPIC; Gutter-Cleaning Pig,Challenge.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:48:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"54RHA2.0.Fu1.CTvFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24085
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I'm plagued with fall cleaning of 240 feet
of aluminum gutter.

I have used a high-powered leaf blower,and high
pressure water spray, but would like a "pig"
that fits in the gutter below the hangers and can be actuated and dragged
along the trough using a gizmo that plugs into a power outlet
with a 10 to 20 foot reach, and can be walked along from the ground.

Sort of a Smart SMOT.  :)

Keep it proprietary if you wish, but I get first dibs at trying out a
prototype, ok?

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 15:56:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08846;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:55:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:55:15 -0800
Message-ID: <017b01be0784$fc07ce00$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pointless debate with Blue
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:52:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"yqQQ81.0.7A2.YVvFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24086
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pointless debate with Blue

Norman wrote:


>Gene:
>
>>>  Does he know nothing about this
>>subject? Is he incapable of distinguishing between facts and fiction?
>
>Simple answer:   No.
>
>Gene Mallove <<
>
>I think you meant "YES" <G>

LOL! Reverse Psychology. :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Norman
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 16:54:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30924;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:52:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:52:30 -0800
Message-ID: <363FA624.8B9 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:56:04 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Iwamura critique  7.22.98
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"wZEei1.0.zY7.DLwFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24087
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Received: from rmforall.earthlink.net (1Cust18.tnt23.dfw5.da.uu.net [208.254.197.18])
	by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA26581;
	Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <35B69076.1AFA earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:26:44 -0500
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Iwamura critique  7.22.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

July 22, 1998
Rich Murray
Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

Yesterday, Los Alamos National Lab Library received the July "Fusion
Technology," with "Detection of anamolous elements, x-ray, and excess
heat in a D2-Pd system and its interpretation by the electron-induced
nuclear reaction model," Y. Iwamura [iwamura atrc.mhi.co.jp], T. Itoh,
N. Gotoh, I. Toyoda, "Fusion Technology, 33, July, 1998, p. 476-492,
Received Sept. 8, 1997, Advanced Technology Research Center, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd, 1-8-1, Sachiura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama 236,
Japan.

On May 8, Eliot Kennel [ekennel compuserve.com], an experienced
researcher who had spent two years working closely with CF researchers
in Japan, posted a long and detailed critical summary of ICCF-7: "I was
disappointed by a presentation by Ohmori, in which he claimed that some
anomalous effect occurred during high current electrolysis, at which
point the electrode becomes hot and generates a plasma.  A fantastic
neutron flux (106 n/sec) was claimed, but then Ohmori admitted that this
might be due to electromagnetic noise from the plasma.  Since he is not
dead from radiation poisoning, the latter explanation is likely.  It
seems to me that this is probably nothing more than the burnout heat
flux (at a certain point, the heat transfer coefficient decreases, which
causes the surface to heat up, which causes the heat transfer
coefficient to further decrease, and so on.  This causes flash boiling,
similar to what Ohmori observed).  The low quality of this paper frankly
shocked me, and may cause me to re-evaluate the isotope shift papers by
the Hokkaido University group.  My confidence in their research has been
thoroughly shaken.   Similarly, the work of the Iwamura group at
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) was disappointing, as they reported
non-reproducible results which have the definite appearance of
electronic noise.  Several papers from China also fit into this
category."   

Iwamura et al apply 20-40 W from a round 1.2 cm Pt anode to a square Pd
cathode, 25X25X1 mm, at 1-3A in a 1 M LiOD/D2O electrolyte for week-long
runs.  The bottom side of the Pd cathode mounts to a vacuum chamber with
an O-ring gasket.  The cell seems to be about 6 cm diameter, if their
drawing is to scale, with the vacuum chamber 4 cm high, and the cell 5.5
cm high.  A Pt recombiner was tested to be >99 % efficient.  Five turns
of a cooling tube, perhaps stainless steel, plated with 10 micron Au,
conducts "pure water" for mass flow calorimetry.  At the start of each
run, Ar gas is put above the electrolyte at 1 atm.  The vacuum pumping
speed of the turbo molecular pump is 50 L/s-- is that constant?  The
electrolytic cell is Teflon, with all its internal parts coated with
sprayed Teflon.  The composition of the vacuum cell is not given.    
Two NaI scintillation counters monitor the cell from outside, while in
the vacuum a third one is mounted in the base, pointing about 2 cm from
the Pd cathode.  A He-3 neutron detector is outside the base of the
cell.  Data are logged every 20 s, and the energy spectrum of X rays
every 6 hours.  Pressures in the cell and in the vacuum are monitored,
and used to estimate the loading of the Pd, which reaches .8 in a day
[8.64X10E4 s], but no independent measures of loading are given.  

Fig. 3 shows two graphs of electrolytic vs vacuum pressures, for two
almost identical 3.3 day runs.  Page 479: "However, it is easy to see
that the absorpion and desorpion of deuterium are entirely different,
which suggests that the absorpion and desorption behavior of deuterium
is greatly influenced by unspecified factors,i.e. , metallurgical
conditions such as impurity and defects in Pd."

I think I know what the "unspecified factors" are-- leaks.  EV29 shows a
leak that lets gas into the vacuum, producing a steady state pressure,
regardless of increasing electrolytic pressure.  The trace becomes a
thick line, indicating a rapidly fluctuating leak.  EV34 shows an
initial leak that somehow got plugged, allowing the vacuum to be
restored.

We've run into O-ring seals recently, with the ill-fated Cincinnati
Group.  A little thermal expansion, some reuse of the apparatus, and,
voila!, data stew!  Pd is well known to expand and crack with high
loading.

Probably, they have only one possible case of an element anomaly: Ti on
the electrolytic surface of palladium sample EV27.  Toward the end of my
three-hour session, I realized, with a distinct shock, that the cooling
tube, probably Cu or stainless steel, plated with a delicate 10 micron
Au film, wound five times around the perimeter of the electrolyte, was
perhaps 80 cm long, with surface area about 40--100 cm2.  I suppose the
cell was used again and again, and with an accumulation of scratchs,
electrochemical corrosion between the gold and the metal would release
all kinds of ions during the days of operation.  They found a layer of
stuff, full of Ti, with a thickness from .2 to 3 microns, a 15-fold
range, in a disk of deposition 1.2 cm wide, which had, "...estimated
increased Ti mass is about 21 micrograms."   It could just as easily be
five-fold less. Why not do a chemical extraction and assey to determine
the exact mass of Ti?

Page 482: "Of course, we did not add any Ti to the electrolyte or the Pd
and Pt electrodes."   But, what if an overzealous underling did?  These
things happen.

The calorimetry is inadequate, with no insulation mentioned or
depicted, and the 25X25X1 mm Pd cathode freely radiating any excess heat
into the vacuum chamber, with a large heat sink, a cylinder of Pb
(mass?) with 2.5 cm thick walls.  Table III lists the largest Excess
Heat as: max 3.2 W, about 7.5 to 15 % of the "20W to 40W" input power
range-- but this seems to be just a temporary fluctuation.  Fig. 8 has a
histogram of excess heat distributions, showing values ranging from +3.5
to -1.5 W, for sample EV39, giving a mean of +1.14 W, a spurious 3-digit
accuracy.  The statistical significance of this value is not given.

The method for calculating D/Pd loading very much needs to be checked
by independent measurements.  Probably, the loading would vary greatly
across the plate, which could be a good feature, if reactions happen
only at certain values.  They assume, for one, that the flow is not
spotty across the plate.  

The X-ray data on p. 480 is their strongest suit-- but is there only one
case of radiation below the cathode plate?  Days of 50 counts per second
bursts sound convincing at first, but there seems to be no replication
available in their data set.  Did they try and fail to replicate the
X-ray result?  Fig. 5 of "Simultanous detection" by the two NaI
detectors might be from sparks and glow discharges from minute leakage
of D2, D2O, and Ar.  Only an interval of .2 from 1.55 to 1.75 X 10E5  s
is shown, and the matching lines are in an interval of .03 from about
1.65 to 1.68 X 10E5 s, from a run perhaps as long as 6 X 10E5 s. This is
rather select data, considering the novelty and importance of the claim.

Table II shows via ICP/MS a large range for the largest impurity, Fe, in
three used Pd cathode samples:  260, 210, 30 ppm.  Nothing is said about
this, while much is made of the 8-fold excess of Ti for sample EV
27.  What is the actual amount of the cathode analyzed?  Of the eight
impurities from three used Pd cathodes, namely, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni Cu,
Pt, and Au, only Fe, Cu, and Au are higher in one or two of the used
samples than in the two unused samples: these three elements may come
from the cooling tube, which may be copper or stainless steel, plated
with a frail 10 micron layer of Au.

Page 486: "Another point to consider is that Ti atoms are not always
detected.  Sometimes, other elements are found, such as Si, Au, Pb, Cr,
Cu, Fe, and so on; and sometimes, no elements are detected even though
the experimental conditions are almost the same.  In addition, the
quantities of the detected elements vary.  As is visible to the naked
eye, the shades of the black circle are different every time; sometimes
the circle corresponding to the shape of the Pt anode looks brown or
metallic."  Stainless steel can supply Si, Cr, Cu, and Fe.  Complex,
variable corrosion of the cooling tube and other components can
inexplicably supply various impurities over the several dozen or so
runs.  
 
I will now move through the report in sequence:

Electrolyte:  mass, Ph, volume, accumulation of impurities?

Palladium plate: mass, before and after runs?  Shape changes, corrosion,
subtle leaks?

Recombiner: mass, trace elements?

Cooling pipe: dimensions, composition, mass before and after runs, trace
elements in cooling pipe and Au film, corrosion, subtle leaks?

Coolant flow rate:  values, constancy, accuracy of measurement,
exact composition of fluid, how long used, mass, trace elements, any
accumulation of impurities over time, exposure of fluid to heat sources
and impurities outside the cell, bubbles, suds?  Accumulated gunk that
slows down the pump?

Thermocouples: type, accuracy, constancy, placement inside cooling tube
or on outside, insulation, actual values for solution, gas, recombiner? 

Teflon: mass before and after runs, condition after runs, any deposits
of gunk or absorbed gases, actual permeability of sprayed Teflon on
wires, shape changes, thermal expansion, subtle leaks?  How often is
cell reused?  Scott Little in testing the CETI RIFEX cell, found that
impurities from one run could contaminate successive runs.

Pressure in electrolyte and vacuum: accuracy, actual values, constancy,
any evidence of subtle leaks?

A subtle leak could release D2, D2O, and Ar into the vacuum.  Any mass
or shape changes in the O-ring gasket?  Was the gasket reused?  Did its
appearance change?  Teflon is an excellent insulator-- any evidence for
static electricity buildup in the vacuum or on the Pb cylinder, or on
the outer surface of the cell, since glow, corona, or spark discharges
could cause spurious signals in the NaI detectors?  Any 10-100 volt
potentials available from the detectors or other electronics?

NaI scintillator abd He-3 neutron detectors: sensitivity at various
energies, reliability, known characteristic weaknesses, size and shape,
mass, voltages, actual background in detail throughout whole history of
experiments for years, calibration with known sources, diffusion and
attenuation of any radiation within and from cell, actual values and
history of electric noise?

Al, MgO, etc. coatings: purity, trace radioactivity?  K-40 is a common,
radioactive isotope.  Th-232?  How much did these coatings impede D2 gas
flow?

D/Pd ratio:  Any checks by other methods?  Accuracy,
reliability, precision, stability, fluctuations, impurity effects,
accumulation of impurities on plate and in electrolyte, size and shape
changes in plate due to high loading, subtle leaks, spotty flow through
plate, bubbles on plate, outgassing bursts, temperature spikes?

D/Pd analysis, Fig. 2:  One hour is 3.6 X 10E3 sec, one day is 8.64 X
10E4 sec.  What happens over the several days of the run?  What are the
exact values for a typical stretch of time?

X-ray events, Fig. 4:  Mean background (B.G.) 3.55 counts per sec, 17
counts per minute, which is 2.4 million counts in 600,000 sec.  Why the
lack of counts for a day during the middle of the week?  How many
cumulative counts are in the peaks that rise to as much as 60 counts per
sec?  The energy spectrum, total counts at each energy level (how wide
is this energy interval?) indicates 100,000 counts at about 10 keV,
which is 1 every 6 seconds, far below background, and about 1 count in
100 minutes at 50 keV, very far below background.  Above 100 keV the
signal merges into the background at ~1000 counts at each energy. How
typical is this kind of data pattern?  Page 479: "Note that a
characteristic X-ray (k-alpha, beta) of Pd (~21 keV) was not observed." 

How many samples were run, and how about summaries about each and every
run?

Simultaneous detection, Fig. 5: Page 480: "We observed this kind of
X-ray emission many times (more than 20).  In these cases, nuclear
reactions must occur on the electrolyte side of the Pd."  Linked
electronics, rf interference, sparks?  The background for # 2 is about
14 cps, and for # 3 about 15 cps.  Are the apparent coincidences the
only ones for this run?  Exactly how many other runs?  Detailed
coincident data for all 20+ runs?

Neutron data, Fig. 6:  Is the spike the only one in that run?  The two
X-ray graphs show background of 14 cps, and no X-ray coincidences for a
13.9 hour period.  There seems to be no credible evidence for any
neutron emission: page 480: "Figure 6 shows the correlation between
neutron and X-ray emission and indicates that the neutron and X-ray
emission do not correspond.  However, X-rays 2 and 3 are relatively high
when the neutron bursts. [sic]  It is considered that certain physical
conditions that cause nuclear reactions were satisfied at about the time
of the neutron bursts...Because of the weak correlation between the
neutrons and X rays [sic], in addition to the low reproducibility of
neutron emissions, it is certain that the neutrons and X rays [sic] are
produced by different nuclear reactions."  Fig. 6 shows a sharp neutron
count rate peak of 0.7 cps, above a background of about 0.05 to 0.1 cps:
the peak is an interval of about .1 X 10E5 s during an interval of 13.9
hours from 2.5 to 3.0 X 10E5 s.

Excess heat: Page 481:  "...therefore excess heat is a few percent of
the input power."  This a meaningless claim, unless the calorimetry is
extremely competent.  What are voltage, resistance, current, and input
power, and how precise and constant are these values? Any apparent
correlations are therefore meaningless. Increased current can raise the
temperature of the cell and cause all sorts of artifacts.  For instance,
bubble accumulation on the plate could cause apparent heat changes, and
sudden release of these bubbles can cause apparent heat bursts.  The
plate is horizontal.  How much stirring was caused by bubbling?  At 3 A,
the current density for a plate of 6.25 cm2 area is about .5 A per cm2.
Was the electrolyte stratified into different temperature zones at
times, and then stirred?  How great are the temperature differences
within the electrolyte at different times?

Fig. 8 shows a frequency histogram of excess heat.  Why a dip at 1.5 W? 
The comparison with the shape of the histogram for a different sample,
with a five-fold greater frequency, is without meaning. Using these
meaningless correlations, the authors say, page 481: "Up to now we
observed excess heat genberation several times; however, we could not
see any clear relations between excess heat generation and X-ray
emission...Judging from these results, we might consider that excess
heat and x-rays are generated by different nuclear reactions."

The reader by now may be familiar with this pattern of extracting
correlations about "nuclear reactions" from random data sets.

Page 482: "Excess heat of about 1 W lasted for 1 day in the case of
EV27, although x-ray and neutron were not detected."  This is 2.5 % of
40 W input power, an absolutely meaningless result, given the poor
quality of the calorimetry.  

Page 487, "EV8 is the sample that emitted continuous long-term X rays.
[sic].  The elements Ca, Cr, Fe, Pt, Ti, and O are detected [by EDX and
WDX, Fig. 17] on the black circle on the surface of the electrolyte
side.  As these results indicate, a correlation between these elements
detected on the Pd and nuclear products or excess heat is not clear at
present."

Table 3, Summary of Multi-Layer Cathode Experiments:  Why is so little
data given?  The excess heats given, are maximums, as large as 3.2 W,
only a meaningless small fraction of input power.  What is the
integrated excess heat?  What do the simultanous x-ray graphs actually
look like?  How common are "Simultaneous detection", claimed in five of
the six runs?

Of the 11 references, 5 are to Iwamura reports at International Cold
Fusion Conferences, and 3 to reports by Mizuno, Ohmori, and Miley, which
are unable to withstand scrutiny.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 16:56:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA31809;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:55:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:55:39 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130500b26565163de1 [38.27.23.142]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:04:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ypthy2.0.tm7.AOwFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24088
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>It's a knee jerk reaction to hate the government, but like it or not,
>>there are good people doing good jobs in the government, which is why
>>you have running water, nice paved roads, peace of mind, etc.
>
>***{Citizens of the United States had water, paved roads, and peace of mind
>back during the times when their elected officials abided by the
>constitution, so you can hardly characterize those items as a gift bestowed
>on us by the brutal tyranny that rules us now. What you don't seem to
>recognize is that the impact of government is determined by the moral
>stature of the people at the top. It is they, not the peons at the lower
>levels, who speak for and control the actions of "the government."
>Unfortunately, in recent times virtually every official act of such people
>has been evil, and virtually every official utterance by them, on virtually
>any topic, has been a lie or tantamount to a lie. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>>
>>Terren

It is reasonable to state that many previous 'civilizations' of note have
crumbled.  While the historical details may differ, essentially these
'civilizations' have fundamentally crumbled for the same reason -- a
"supply and demand" reason:

"The ideological demand for security was met with a political supply of
tyranny."   --- Andrew J. Galambos, astrophysicist

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 17:10:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA07992;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:08:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:08:59 -0800
Message-ID: <363FAA1E.5451 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 18:13:02 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Rothwell: best CF claims?  11.3.98
References: <199811031559_MC2-5EF1-7A5C compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WO-IW1.0.oy1.hawFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24089
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 3, 1998    Hello all,    I notice Jed Rothwell has not mentioned
many reknown claimants to CF research fame and success, such as Arata &
Zhang, Mizuno et al, CETI & Miley, Blacklight Power, John Dash, Robert
Bush, Mitchell Swartz.

He did specify McKubre, Storms, Claytor, Iwamura at Mitsubishi, and
Miles.  Are any of these currently running successful, even if rarely,
excess power cells?  I notice none of these offer any research findings
that might define a specific nuclear reaction.  I reposted my long,
detailed critique of the Iwamura report, published in July, 1998 Fusion
Technology, which I believe to be very feeble.  Rothwell criticized my
critique, but no one has offered a detailed counter-critique.

Rothwell refers to Dieter Britz's bibliography of  >1,000 peer-reviewed
CF papers, but Britz himself, who probably has read this literature more
than anyone over the years, to my knowledge is only convinced enough to
state that more research is needed.  Do I have that right?

I hope Jed will join me and Blue in closely critiquing Ed Storms' recent
reports.

Rich Murray
Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 18:08:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30061;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:03:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:03:50 -0800
Message-Id: <199811040203.UAA00537 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:02:04 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC; Gutter-Cleaning Pig,Challenge.
Resent-Message-ID: <"dBnDt3.0.dL7.5OxFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24090
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>I'm plagued with fall cleaning of 240 feet
>of aluminum gutter.
>
>I have used a high-powered leaf blower,and high
>pressure water spray, but would like a "pig"
>that fits in the gutter below the hangers and can be actuated and dragged
>along the trough using a gizmo that plugs into a power outlet
>with a 10 to 20 foot reach, and can be walked along from the ground.
>
>Sort of a Smart SMOT.  :)
>
>Keep it proprietary if you wish, but I get first dibs at trying out a
>prototype, ok?
>
>Regards,   Frederick

***{My advice would be to simply remove the rain gutters and toss them in
the trash. They are nothing but a nuisance. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 19:34:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29528;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:33:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:33:01 -0800
Message-ID: <001601be07a2$e80bdae0$8f52ddcf craig>
Reply-To: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <Vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Message from ATNF
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:26:19 -0600
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 TAA29512
Resent-Message-ID: <"MrrnG3.0.ID7.ihyFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24091
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well, I wrote Dr. Norris, head of Astro Physics and Computing for the CSIRO which looked at the signal from the ATNF yesterday, and he wrote me back this.

I am still baffled, guys. If what he says is true, then how is it possible to identify ANY ET signals, other than those at constant frequency, from a constant position? Perhaps it isn't

Craig Haynie (Houston)


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Norris <Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au>
To: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Hello!


>Hi Craig
>
>The point is that there are many, many satellites transmitting in this
>band. Anyone looking anywhere in the sky at around this frequency is likely
>to see something. It certainly isn't likely to be the same satellite each time
>
>Cheers
>
>Ray
>
>At 23:00 3/11/98 , you wrote:
>>Hello! Mr. Norris!
>>
>>Respectfully, how is it that the signal you looked at last night, and
>identified at 1451.8MHZ, can remain in the same stellar position for almost
>2 weeks. Isn't it true that ANY satellite orbitting the Earth would have
>moved against the stellar background in this time.
>>
>>Moreover, the signal that has been monitored by the amateurs appears to
>move about between 1451 - 1454 Mhz, from the several reports posted on the
>Internet. Such a doppler shift would be extremely large for a terrestrial
>satellite, over 10 - 20 times the expected doppler shift of a terrestrial
>satellite. So how can this be consistent with a terrestrial satellite?
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Craig Haynie
>>ccHaynie ix.netcom.com
>> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Ray P. Norris
>Head of Astrophysics and Computing
>CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility
>PO Box 76 Email: Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au
>Epping WWW: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris
>NSW 1710 Phone: +61 2 9372 4416
>Australia Fax: +61 2 9372 4310
> Mobile: 0417 288 307
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 21:01:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA23413;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:59:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:59:29 -0800
Message-ID: <082501be07af$8c473260$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <atech@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:56:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"JrdON3.0.Tj5.myzFs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24092
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>people from Vortex-L as are interested to participate. I was a founder of
>the Boston Virtual Reality Group (formerly the Boston Computer Society
>Virtual Reality Group). We (my associate V & I) produced 3D solid models
for
>the annual SIGGRAPH virtual reality group project for 4 out of 5 years in a
>row. SIGGRAPH is the biggest computer graphics conferance held annually.
>Companies were always there to loan state of the art VR equipment to base
>our immersive environments on.  One year, we ran a $150,000.00 SGI Reality
>Engine! I want to try the same effort of group participation on projects.

Why are you not still into VR then? It seems to me there will be heavy
profits in that in the near future with the entertainment industry.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 21:23:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA30788;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:22:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:22:17 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130302b2658ca6d491 [12.72.128.6]>
In-Reply-To: <199811031559_MC2-5EF1-7A5C compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:05:54 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Remarks by Kurtz
Resent-Message-ID: <"IXEv81.0.xW7.8I-Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24093
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed -

  > * Anyone can recall s.p.f. messages with DejaVu.

I have the distinct feeling that I've seen that typo somewhere before.

Ah yes, I remember. I see it every damn time I try to type it myself. They
should just change it to DejaVu and make it easier on us.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 22:07:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA11758;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:05:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:05:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981104140749.00aab7e0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:07:49 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Message from ATNF
In-Reply-To: <001601be07a2$e80bdae0$8f52ddcf craig>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYiYm3.0.at2.yw-Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24094
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 21:26 3/11/98 -0600, Craig wrote:

>Well, I wrote Dr. Norris, head of Astro Physics and Computing for
>the CSIRO which looked at the signal from the ATNF yesterday, and
>he wrote me back this.

Well done but lets hope too many people don't bother him. I was
thinking of asking him if I got the explanation for the phase
turning correct, but I am a bit busy and I am sure he is also.

>I am still baffled, guys. If what he says is true, then how is it
>possible to identify ANY ET signals, other than those at constant
>frequency, from a constant position? Perhaps it isn't

The constant position is the key.  The further something is away,
the slower they move with respect to the "fixed" star background.
The pioneer spacecraft are good examples - they are always to be
found in virtually the same place and Phoenix uses them as a
good end-to-end check of their detection system.  If I remember
rightly Phoenix also have a large data base of known satellite
frequencies so as not to get too many false alarms.  Some
frequency bands are so crowded with signals (usually local
sources not satellites) that they don't bother scanning them.

The frequency can drift, but it is not expected to drift very
quickly as drift would normally represent acceleration.  The
Phoenix software looks for drifting signals such as the diagonal
line in the Japanese plot, as well as for pulsed ON-OFF signals
and a few other varieties.

The CSIRO data plots would not show a drifting signal as clearly
as the other waterfall displays, but one should be visible as a
bar graph type of block standing above the background noise level.
If I remember rightly there is around 18hours of data there and
it is probably a little impractical to put up that much data as
a waterfall display.

>>At 23:00 3/11/98 , Craig wrote:
>>>Hello! Mr. Norris!
>>>
>>>Respectfully, ...

He is a Dr by the way.  If you are sincere about being respectful
you should use his proper title!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov  3 22:28:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA17945;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:26:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:26:57 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03130301b2659fb64ef8 [12.64.4.243]>
In-Reply-To: <363F75EE.95A71C10 verisoft.com.tr>
References: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net> <363EA67B.22@ca-ois.com>
 <363EA866.1422 ca-ois.com> <363EA978.6E93@ca-ois.com>
 <363F14EE.32EC9F91 bellsouth.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:23:40 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: ET Signal
Resent-Message-ID: <"n_lK32.0.HO4.mE_Fs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24095
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi -

   >  If this range is never used by any satellite communication,
   >  the only reason could be scientific purpose, not military
   >  (except sci-mil :) ). So later cases lead to gov cover-up of
   >  ET signal. But the instant response from gov imply it may
   >  really belong to them.

I was wondering what a deep space probe would be doing out there with a
rather briskly drifting CW if that's what it is. I can think of two
reasons. One is earthly, and the other isn't. What I can't figure is what
sort of earthly strategic reason there'd be to send a conventional dcraft
generally out of the solar system. So it leaves me with:

1 - Going out to meet or monitor somebody or something suspicious. Ship,
signal, asteroid/comet-threat, etc. (I don't think any of this is likely,
but who knows)

2 - Test a fabulous new propulsion system.

Number two might account for a drastically doppler shifted signal, and
divide further into two categories: Some powerful new field propulsion
system as Ben Rich might have alluded to, or a more or less conventional
system for which there is reason to keep secret, like a big (dangerous,
dirty) nuclear engine.

Does anyone know if there might be any great propulsion benefits to using
such an engine if environmental dangers are set aside? Could the Mil go
ripping around the solar system at Serious Velocity with something like a
big nasty nuke spewing water for reaction mass?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 00:25:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA16018;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:24:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:24:31 -0800
From: Geosas aol.com
Message-ID: <a2aeb638.36400f19 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:23:53 EST
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Cc: jo.fiebag t-online.de, Geosas@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i  for Windows sub 164
Resent-Message-ID: <"TJcdv3.0.Cw3.-y0Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24096
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry to bring this up again, but there is a point which has not
been mentioned.  Here are some positions for the object which
have been posted:

<<
There is something very wrong with this picture.  The object, according to
three separate observers, has a relatively constant position.

27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
31-OCT-98 17:30 1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA -
Australia)

Note also that Dore himself observed it on multiple days as well.
>>

If this object is at a reasonably small distance from the Earth, it will
exhibit parallax, i.e. the apparent position will be different when it has
just risen and is on the eastern horizon, from the position when it is
about to set on the western horizon.

>From the difference of these apparent positions the object's distance
can be found by simple triangulation, with the Earth's diameter (~ 8000
miles) as a baseline.

Did any of the observers do this?

If the thing does not appear to move in the sky between its rising 
and setting, it is a helluva long way away.

Suppose that the difference in declination from the first and last of
these observations represents the parallax = 18.8 seconds.
The distance then is 8000/sin(18.8 sec.) = ~ 88 million miles,
about the distance of the Sun.

It sounds to me like a spread-spectrum signal, in which case it will
appear at regular frequency intervals, not just one.  Did they check
this?  This could account for the different frequencies observed.

Best, George.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 02:39:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA05380;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:38:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:38:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981104184038.00aab920 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:40:38 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Another Message from ATNF
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981104140749.00aab7e0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
References: <001601be07a2$e80bdae0$8f52ddcf craig>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"P1ZOU.0.wJ1.hw2Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24097
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Some time ago I wrote:

>This phase shift indicates that the object emitting the carrier
>is traversing across the aiming line of the telescope which has
>been aimed accurately at EQ Pegasi and is tracking it.  We can
>easily work out at what rate it is crossing since the wavelength
>is ~0.21m and the baseline is 350m and it loses a wavelength
>every minute - the angular rate is 0.21/350 radians/minute.
>If the object continued traversing at this angular rate then
>it would completely orbit the earth in just over a week.

This is only part of the answer.  I asked Dr Norris for further
enlightenment :-

>>My initial guess at understanding was that this phase turning rate
>>was due to the path lengths from the source to each side of the
>>antenna array slowly changes because the source is traversing
>>the field of view of the telescope.  You give a baseline of 350m
>>and the wavelength is approx 0.21m so this suggests that the source
>>is crossing the field of view at approx 0.21/350 radians/minute.
>>Is this a reasonable assumption ?  This means that the angle to
>>the source would have changed by approx 37 degrees during the 18
>>hours of observation ?  If so then I am surprised that the signal
>>remains so clearly detectable for the whole of the 18 hours.  I
>>would have expected the antennas to be much more directional ?

Here is his answer which I think I now understand :-

>Well, first the antennas are changing the position to track one point in
>the sky. Second, the electronics are also chnaging the phase of the signals
>in one arm of the interferometer, so that the correlated phase of an object
>at the phase centre (i.e. EQ Peg) is constant. I.e. the path length of the
>signal down the two arms of the interferometer is adjusted electrically so
>that the difference in path length is zero for an object at the phase centre.
>
>A source some way away from the phase centre will have the wrong phase,
>because the two path lengths are different. A source 1 arcmin away
>(~=0.2m/350m) would chnage its phase by a maximum of 1 turn in 24 h
>(actually the maximum *rate* is four turns per 24 h). A source ten degrees
>away will have a max phase rate 10*60*4 turns per 24h = 1.7 turns/min
>
>>You say the interferometer is 6Km long, so is the 350m baseline
>>just a function of the hardware/software signal processing?
>
>We have six antennas, and so have several baselines ranging from 350m to 6
>km. see www.atnf.csiro.au for details

Unfortunately he didn't explain what should be the effect of a
source which crosses the field of view at a constant angular
rate.  An off-centre source of course will appear to oscillate
back and forth about the cente with a 24hour period and this
is primarily what he has described - and is where the maximum
rate being four turns per 24h comes from - at the maximum slope
of the sinusoidal oscillation between plus one turn and minus
one turn.

I guess a constant rate of crossing the field of view will simply
add a constant phase shift rate to the oscillating phase shift
rate pretty much as I described.  Fitting a constant rate plus
sinusoid to the data in the phase shift plot would find both
components - its rate of motion, and its angular displacement
from EQ Pegasi.  Anyone enjoy processing data ?

Incidentally there is lots of good information about how to use
and troubleshoot and repair the ATCA for anyone that wants to
use it for an experiment :-

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/users_guide/html/atug.html

Maybe Mitchel Jones would like to figure out how and where he
would put in his black boxes to selectively prevent detection
of ET signals! :)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 05:13:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA00859;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:11:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:11:46 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01be07f3$c85f03b0$cd54ddcf craig>
Reply-To: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Message from ATNF
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:05:21 -0600
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 FAA00833
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gx-PA3.0.HD.IA5Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24098
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Message from ATNF


>The constant position is the key.  The further something is away,
>the slower they move with respect to the "fixed" star background.

OK, but the only way he knows the object was moving was because of the drifting frequency. I sometimes follow satellites with my shortwave radio. As they approach, they'll be a couple of kilohertz high. As they pass over-head, the frequency will shift low

er. This doppler shift is in proportion to the frequency. What Dr. Norris saw was a dropping frequency, the same dropping frequency that everyone else saw when they looked at this signal, and he assumed it was a passing satellite. He didn't know the posit

ion of the signal. He had his antenna pointed at the coordinates specified by Paul Dore. He wasn't able to pick up anything on the narrow beam, but did pick this up when reconfiguring the antenna for a wide beam. The question is this -- if you point an an

tenna to the same position tonight, will there be a signal there?

>He is a Dr by the way.  If you are sincere about being respectful
>you should use his proper title!


And you think I intentionally avoided that?

Craig Haynie (Houston)



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 06:37:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24773;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:32:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:32:27 -0800
Message-ID: <001c01be07ff$04716db0$4951ddcf craig>
Reply-To: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:25:46 -0600
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 GAA24751
Resent-Message-ID: <"qN8Ac2.0._26.xL6Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24099
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello John Winterflood!

I think I understand what you're saying; If the phase of the signal, over the width of the antenna is changing, with respect to time, then this almost certainly indicates a movement ACROSS the field of view.. Right? Therefore, because the phase of the obs

erved signal was changing, there HAD to be tangental motion to the object emitting the signal.

If this is true, then one should be able to use the change in phase to calculate the rate of change across the field of view, and subsequently to calculate the orbit of the device emitting the signal, if you assume the orbit is around the Earth. Shouldn't

 you also be able to correlate this angular change with the observed shift in frequency over the duration of the observation? If so, then you could 'almost' PROVE it to be a satellite? Right?

So our explanation for this signal, viewed by Paul Dore, the fellow in the Channel Isles, and the other fellow in Japan, is that it WASN'T one signal, but separate signals picked up by chance, near the same frequency, near the same location against the st

ellar background? If this is true, then it looks like amateur SETI is going to have a hell of a time trying to distinguish true signals from common signals. The signal must exhibit NO frequency change; exhibit NO phase change; and be consistently in one p

lace for weeks before it can be taken seriously.

Thanks to everyone for the band-width. 

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 06:38:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA27596;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:38:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:38:14 -0800
Message-ID: <3640668B.166F3C47 ro.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:37:00 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Do-it-yourself antenna?
References: <199811031338_MC2-5EF1-7313 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gP_Aj2.0.6l6.MR6Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24100
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Patrick V. Reavis writes:
>
>     I have, however, noticed an increasingly large number of 8 to 12 foot
>     diameter satellite dishes set on the curb for the trash collector. Maybe
>     the newer technology of 18 inch dishes will allow the use of "recycled"
>     dishes for the amateur radio astronomer.
>
> Maybe you could pick up ten of them and make a Very Small Very Large Array
> (VSVLA). Or maybe you get 10,000 amateurs to pick up one each and coordinate
> via Internet? Like the way people have been extracting huge prime numbers
> lately.
>
> - Jed


;)  !!!

--
Regards,
Patrick V. Reavis


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 06:55:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA01547;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:52:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:52:25 -0800
Message-ID: <01e801be0802$4f2600c0$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Palladium-DNO3 Alchemy?
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:48:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"b9wgB1.0.5O.fe6Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24101
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Given that Palladium will dissolve in Nitric Acid,running NO2 into D2O to
form concentrated
DNO3 should form a solvent.

Then dissolving Palladium in the DNO3,might allow the D+ ions to effect
transmutation of
the Pd.

Calorimetry and chemical analysis should determine if the Alchemy is
occurring.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 06:57:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02713;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:54:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:54:44 -0800
Message-ID: <36406A85.8AD10445 ro.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:53:57 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC; Gutter-Cleaning Pig,Challenge.
References: <017601be0784$9e65c5e0$b2b4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"oR7fW1.0.Fg.pg6Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24102
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'm plagued with fall cleaning of 240 feet
> of aluminum gutter.
>
> I have used a high-powered leaf blower,and high
> pressure water spray, but would like a "pig"
> that fits in the gutter below the hangers and can be actuated and dragged
> along the trough using a gizmo that plugs into a power outlet
> with a 10 to 20 foot reach, and can be walked along from the ground.
>
> Sort of a Smart SMOT.  :)
>
> Keep it proprietary if you wish, but I get first dibs at trying out a
> prototype, ok?
>
> Regards,   Frederick


Ooooh, Freddie,
Water and extension cords don't mix well, and besides that, the 8" nails
spaced at regular intervals would turn your pig into bacon.  However, I'll
offer a few solutions.  Take your pick, but if you patent, I'll expect 112%
commision on each sale.

Solution #1:  Get a chain saw, cut down the offending trees.

Solution #2:  Move to Southern California, where it never rains.

Solution #3:  Let the leaves decompose, then mulch the garden.

Solution #4:  Buy a miniature pot-bellied pig to eat the leaves.

Solution #5:  Ignore solutions #1 through #4.

You ain't the only SMOT-alec on Vortex-l..........

;^}

--
Regards,
Patrick V. Reavis


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 07:00:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA04311;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:58:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:58:15 -0800
Message-ID: <36406BC5.30A3 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:59:17 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ET Signal
References: <363EA007.5A7B bellsouth.net> <363EA67B.22@ca-ois.com>
	 <363EA866.1422 ca-ois.com> <363EA978.6E93@ca-ois.com>
	 <363F14EE.32EC9F91 bellsouth.net> <l03130301b2659fb64ef8@[12.64.4.243]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"tF9zN3.0.H31.7k6Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24103
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
(snip)
> Does anyone know if there might be any great propulsion benefits to using
> such an engine if environmental dangers are set aside? 

Go to:

	http://www.roadrunner.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html

for some neat stuff on that, Rick.  The toroidal gas-core nuke looks
very "Treky" - no warp though!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 07:35:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA18572;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:33:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:33:38 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <364073AB.D168107C css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:32:59 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
References: <082501be07af$8c473260$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pCy2j2.0.2Y4.IF7Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24104
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bill Wallace wrote:
> ??? wrote:
> >people from Vortex-L as are interested to participate. I was a founder of
> >the Boston Virtual Reality Group (formerly the Boston Computer Society
> >Virtual Reality Group). 

I missed the original message.  Who here was a founder of the BVRG?

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 08:42:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05647;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:40:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:40:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3640781D.9F2ADB4B verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:51:57 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"iJK7I.0.9O1.nD8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24105
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/

<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="HTML">
  <TITLE>...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#000000">

<P ALIGN=CENTER><IMG SRC="nsa.gif" WIDTH=
"279" HEIGHT="129" ALIGN="BOTTOM" NATURALSIZEFLAG="3">
</BODY>
</HTML>


nsa.gif is the logo of the US National Security Agency. All other subpages are either removed or replaced by NSA logo also.


List of pages prior to NSA

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/betastrange.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/blacksedan.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/hacked.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/identity.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/japan.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html

This is great. Page is changed in last hours prior to this letter. These guys are serious nodoubt. May we ask to B.Beaty to continue this tread before we all receive the same logo on our letters.


Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 08:54:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11021;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:53:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:53:24 -0800
Message-ID: <020901be0813$367216c0$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC; Gutter-Cleaning Pig,Challenge.
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:50:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"YaesX2.0.7i2.4Q8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24107
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick V. Reavis <preavis ro.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC; Gutter-Cleaning Pig,Challenge.

Patrick wrote:
>
>Solution #1:  Get a chain saw, cut down the offending trees.
>
>Solution #2:  Move to Southern California, where it never rains.
>
>Solution #3:  Let the leaves decompose, then mulch the garden.
>
>Solution #4:  Buy a miniature pot-bellied pig to eat the leaves.
>
>Solution #5:  Ignore solutions #1 through #4.
>
>You ain't the only SMOT-alec on Vortex-l..........
>
>;^}

Great suggestions Patrick! I'll give them some serious thought.  :-)

However, a miniature mountain goat rather than a pig might do,but I'm afraid
it will eat the the gutter too. Then there is the matter of what they Leaves
behind their behind.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>--
>Regards,
>Patrick V. Reavis
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 08:57:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08037;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:45:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:45:26 -0800
Message-ID: <36408D03.7F94 ca-ois.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:21:07 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: mjones jump.net
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
References: <199811032248.QAA27204 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wxTux3.0.Tz1.bI8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24106
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> >> ***{So it is game, set, and match, as I predicted. Our masters, who have
> >> the power, win as usual, and we lose. As usual, we have only one choice:
> >> the choice to worship them as gods and treat everything they say as the
> >> truth, or the choice to see them for what they are and disbelieve virtually
> >> everything they say. With regard to Paul Dore's story, above, this choice
> >> boils down to something very simple: do we believe the government story
> >> that the EQ Pegasi signal is from "a classified intelligence satellite
> >> having to do with something known as Project 415," or do we simply treat
> >> that as more bullshit from the Men in Black, and conclude that this is a
> >> SETI hit which is a bit closer to Earth than any of us ever imagined? That
> >> is a matter which we all have to decide for ourselves. In any case, I have
> >> no desire to look down the barrel of a gun, and so I will say no more about
> >> this subject. Later, slaves. --Mitchell Jones}***

This statement by Mitchell deserved a repost in it's entirety, and I
will be happy to take this up where he leaves off. I have my own gun
which will be pointed in the opposing direction if any MIBS figure out
how to arrive at my door . Liberty or death, that has always been  the
choice as far as I'm concerned. 

I believe that there is sufficient Grace warranted to those who stand up
for what is right to enable them to avoid the spreading tentacles of
gov't and also allow them to enjoy a certain level of freedom from what
an aquaintance of mine used to call the "Clipboard Nazis" . These folks
are the run of the mill armed gov't representatives , not necessarily
from MKUltra, CIA , FBI or the more notoriously evil agencies of gov't,
but more often are ordinary cops or other local gov't employees who will
tell you they are "just doing thier jobs". I won't go into just how I
keep confrontations with them down to a minimum , but suffice to say we
cross paths occasionally and the results are 
typically courtroom disasters for them , with judges doing everything in
their power 
to get me to quietly go away (case dismissed).

What these judges fear most is the exposure of the underlying evil
mechanism by which
they exact their toll on society - the counterfeit money scam which is
simply that nothing more- those peices of paper which still represent
the backbone of the "credit" industry (ATM's MasterCard etc) are really
as worthless as tolet paper in a strictly legal sense and when one rocks
this particular boat, EVERYONE in gov't gets worried. 

Enough of this for now, let's get back to the EQ Peg signal issue. I
still haven't seen or heard of any WAV recordings of what this signal
sounds like on playback. Even if it's a data transmission of some kind
there may be clues as to it's exact nature by listening to the result of
whatever demodulation methods may be applied. 

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 08:58:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12750;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:55:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:55:41 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2662bd41cb4 [208.228.222.141]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:01:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
Cc: jo.fiebag t-online.de, Geosas@aol.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"4titu1.0.273.CS8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24108
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:23 AM 11/4/98, Geosas aol.com wrote:
[snip]
>
>27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
>31-OCT-98 17:30 1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
>03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA -
>Australia)
>
>Note also that Dore himself observed it on multiple days as well.
>>>
>
>If this object is at a reasonably small distance from the Earth, it will
>exhibit parallax, i.e. the apparent position will be different when it has
>just risen and is on the eastern horizon, from the position when it is
>about to set on the western horizon.

This is what I was getting at regarding the use of very long baseline
technique.  Maybe I don't have the correct terminology.  Two very distant
radiotelescopes record signals using very accurate atomic clocks.  Then the
data is compared for phase shift.  I saw this explained on PBS a while ago.
The method was used in two dimensions for imaging.  Pretty darn amazing.

Again, a simultaneous optical fix, using time lapse, would give a good
solid reading on angular velocity, and prove/disprove (1) the multiple
satellite hypothesis and (2) the close proximity of the signal source.


>
>From the difference of these apparent positions the object's distance
>can be found by simple triangulation, with the Earth's diameter (~ 8000
>miles) as a baseline.
>
>Did any of the observers do this?
>
>If the thing does not appear to move in the sky between its rising
>and setting, it is a helluva long way away.
>
>Suppose that the difference in declination from the first and last of
>these observations represents the parallax = 18.8 seconds.
>The distance then is 8000/sin(18.8 sec.) = ~ 88 million miles,
>about the distance of the Sun.


The coordinates in the first two observations above are probably not
accurate enough to apply this method, true?  Also, if the signal source is
that far away it is probably not in earth orbit.  The motion of the earth
in it's orbit, about (9.3x10^7 miles)(2Pi)/(365 days) = 1.6 million miles
is a lot more significant than 8000 mile earth baseline, and then motion of
the object relative to the earth is unknown.  Also, the observations were
at other than rising time, at differing times of day, so the parallax
baseline would vary in length.

The ATCA baseline phase shift (a much smaller baseline being discussed now)
observed indicates an about 150,000 km distance assuming a circular orbit.
There is still no explanation for a satellite at this distance.  This
distance would only be a minimum though, right?  For this to be accurate
there needs to be an observation of the phase shift in two axes, wouldn't
there?  For example, an object moving perpendicular to the baselline would
show no baseline phase shift at all.  One thing needed very badly is more
similar observations from the ATCA.

Another question arises.  What other explanation could there be for the
baseline phase shift observed by ATCA?   I think one answer could be a
multiple point source, i.e. a very long  equivalent antenna.  Any other
answers?

A long antenna answer might relate in some way to other recent
observations.  There have been very low frequency signals reported by the
ULF-SCI group that associated to some degree with the recent close approach
of asteroid SH36.

See <http://www.elfrad.com/elfinfo.htm> and click on the link, "Current
Research."

I quote:

"During our recent monitoring, an anomaly was noticed. Instead of the
random frequency peaks, a very distinct wide bandwidth signal was noticed.
The frequency indicated a wavelength of approximately 23,000,000 miles.
During the next few examination periods, we discovered the frequency had
increased
indicating a wavelength of around 19,000,000 miles.  At this point in
time we started searching for a cause.  We discovered that Geophysical
instruments that usually record stellar events in sequence, due to propagation
characteristics, were recording an anomaly in the same time frame.  This
narrowed our search down to looking for an object in space near earth that
could be the cause.

When scanning data bases for any near earth objects we found that the
Asteroid SH36 was about the right distance for the wavelength involved.  The
Asteroid was due for a near earth fly-by on Oct 15.  With this in mind, we
monitored and recorded the frequency as it continually increased until the
wavelength corresponded to around 3.5 million miles.  At this time on Oct
15th, the signal started to decrease in frequency."

I can think of no natural explanation for an asteroid to radiate in an
ULF-VLF range.  Any suggestions?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 09:12:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17658;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:11:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:11:15 -0800
Message-ID: <36408AA1.5E1D70EA ariel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:10:57 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
References: <v02130500b26565163de1 [38.27.23.142]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6QHso1.0.qJ4.pg8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24109
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Evan Soule wrote:
>
> It is reasonable to state that many previous 'civilizations' of note have
> crumbled.  While the historical details may differ, essentially these
> 'civilizations' have fundamentally crumbled for the same reason -- a
> "supply and demand" reason:
> 
> "The ideological demand for security was met with a political supply of
> tyranny."   --- Andrew J. Galambos, astrophysicist
> 
> Evan Soule'

I suppose that might be true but it sounds like another
over-simplification.  This civilization (well democratic parts anyway)
has set up the ability to speak your piece.  And for the time being,
people are still defending that right in the face of those who try to
take it away.  IOW, the common man still has power - even the conspiracy
nuts can scream and yell.  If they couldn't, they'd have a point.

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 09:27:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24230;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:26:22 -0800
Message-ID: <364136F3.BB35AC1 gold.globalcafe.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 05:26:17 +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: Hydrogen Conference in Russia - Call for Papers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nbUR.0.Ww5.-u8Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24110
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

http://hyperg.go.dlr.de/0x81f76103_0x000ff296

Hydrogen Power Theoretical and Engineering Solutions, International
Symposium to take place
July 5-8 1999 in St.-Petersburg State University (St.-Petersburg,
Russia). HYPOTHESIS-III
will be organized under the promotion of the International Association
for Hydrogen Energy,
Hydrogen power and technology Council of the Russian Ministry of
Science, and Russian Academy
of Sciences with the participation of Ministry of General and
Professional Education, Russian
Science Center "Kurchatov Institute", Scientific Research Institute of
the Electro-Physical
Apparatus of D.V.Efremov, Central Scientific Research Institute of
A.N.Krylov, Leningrad
Nuclear Power Plant, State Institute of the Applied Chemistry, RAS
Institute of Transport
Problems, RAS Institute of High Technology, St.- Petersburg State
University, Faculty of
Applied Mathematics & Control Processes and other scientific and
industrial organizations.

It is remarkable that HYPOTHESIS-III will take place in the year of the
275-th anniversary of
St-Petersburg State University and 30-th of the Faculty of the Applied
Mathematics & Control
Processes.

The honorary chairmen of HYPOTHESIS-III: President of the International
Association for
Hydrogen Energy T.N. Veziroglu and vice-president of RAS - O.M. Nefedov.

It is supposed that the work will proceed in the following sections:

    1.New concepts, international and national programs.
    2.Hydrogen technologies and ecological problems of power production.

    3.Hydrogen power plants, including underground nuclear-hydrogen
power plants.
    4.Steam and gas turbine power plants.
    5.Fuel cells.
    6.Hydrogen-hydride systems of energy transformation and
accumulation.
    7.Hydrogen vehicles.
    8.Hydrogen aviation.
    9.Hydrogen safety.
   10.Power production and technological systems and processes control.
Energy resources
       allocation.

Conference secretariat HYPOTHESIS-III, Faculty of Applied Mathematics &
Control Processes,
St.-Petersburg State University, Bibliotechnaya pl.2, St.Petersburg,
198904, Russia,
Fax +7(812)4287189,
Phone +7(812)4284250,
e-mail hypothes efa.apmath.spbu.ru.

More information is available at http://www.apmath.spb.su/hypothesis


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 09:56:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04778;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:55:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:55:04 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26645ec3e38 [208.228.222.190]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:01:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
Cc: jo.fiebag t-online.de, Geosas@aol.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"rFOjr.0.aA1.tJ9Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24111
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just wrote: "The ATCA baseline phase shift (a much smaller baseline being
discussed now) observed indicates an about 150,000 km distance assuming a
circular orbit.  There is still no explanation for a satellite at this
distance.  This distance would only be a minimum though, right?  For this
to be accurate there needs to be an observation of the phase shift in two
axes, wouldn't there?  For example, an object moving perpendicular to the
baselline would show no baseline phase shift at all.  One thing needed very
badly is more similar observations from the ATCA."

The above should read: "The ATCA baseline phase shift (a much smaller
baseline being discussed now) observed indicates an about 150,000 km
distance assuming a circular orbit.  There is still no explanation for a
satellite at this distance.  This distance would only be a *maximum*
though, right?  For this to be accurate there needs to be an observation of
the phase shift in two axes, wouldn't there?  For example, an object moving
perpendicular to the baseline would show no baseline phase shift at all.
One thing needed very badly is more similar observations from the ATCA."

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 10:59:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04248;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:58:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:58:28 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3640A38C.A2ED4FEC css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:57:16 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <3640781D.9F2ADB4B verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6YCg_3.0.F21.JFAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24112
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi Ucar wrote:
> This is great. Page is changed in last hours prior to this letter. These guys are serious nodoubt. 

Yeah right.  Just a poor attempt to apply a veneer of credibility to cover his
tracks.....  I don't buy this NSA implication or the MIB story that proceeded
it.  If the NSA (or anyone else for that matter as I highly doubt the NSA would
be directly involved) did shut him down, they wouldn't leave a calling card. 
His site and information would just be gone.  I don't see how this elaborate
cover up is easier than just admitting a mistake was made.

BTW, if you want the NSA logo for your homepage to help fabricate your own tale
of suppression, just link to it from their server: 
<http://www.nsa.gov:8080/newseal.gif>  Word of caution though before you visit,
they log all IP addresses of all hits to their server.  If this bothers you,
don't go there.  

Also, you may want to consider using the FBI or DoD logo instead.  They would be
a more likely candidates to show up on your door to politely ask you to stop
doing whatever you are doing that is making the government watchdogs nervous. 
NSA is mostly scientists, engineers, mathematicians (the largest employer of
them in the US), linguists, code hackers, and desk jockeys.  Not really your
Mulder and Sculley types.

You can stop shredding the documents now Mr. North......  the emperor has no
clothes on.   8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07297;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:03:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:03:46 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3640A4E4.6A8B3A5B css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:03:00 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
References: <v01530500b2662bd41cb4 [208.228.222.141]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PMUrD3.0.rn1.HKAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24113
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> I can think of no natural explanation for an asteroid to radiate in an
> ULF-VLF range.  Any suggestions?

How about it reflecting our own ULF-VLF range 'noise' back at us?  Just a
thought.....

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:16:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA14326;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:15:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:15:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26658cdccb0 [208.228.222.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:21:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"iMOl21.0.hV3.5VAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24114
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:51 PM 11/4/98, Hamdi Ucar wrote:
[snip]
>This is great. Page is changed in last hours prior to this letter. These
>guys are serious nodoubt. May we ask to B.Beaty to continue this tread
>before we all receive the same logo on our letters.


Note the GeoCities logo on the bottom right corner of the gif.  This is
simply some kind of statement or hype by them I would suppose.  Kind of
like Art Bell quitting?

BTW, Art Bell fans: is Art Bell back now?  Any reasons given why he left?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:29:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21467;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:28:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:28:33 -0800
Message-Id: <36409F9A.205BE6C5 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:40:26 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <v01530501b26658cdccb0 [208.228.222.189]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qdnYe2.0.LF5.XhAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24115
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

 
> Note the GeoCities logo on the bottom right corner of the gif.  This is
> simply some kind of statement or hype by them I would suppose.  Kind of
> like Art Bell quitting?

May John Steck is right about that NSA  will simply erase the site and will not make their logo here. But the Geocities Logo is automatically inserted to the pages, there is no method to suppress this.

BTW, I think to put the NSA logo in your page is a risky business to entertain yourself.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:34:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23281;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:31:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:31:43 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b2665a722f88 [208.228.222.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:37:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
Resent-Message-ID: <"vN9eG3.0.hh5.UkAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24116
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:03 PM 11/4/98, John Steck wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>> I can think of no natural explanation for an asteroid to radiate in an
>> ULF-VLF range.  Any suggestions?
>
>How about it reflecting our own ULF-VLF range 'noise' back at us?  Just a
>thought.....

An interesting idea. However, it is detected using earth potentials at
about a 1/4 mile separation.  I don't know how you would distingush between
the original  and reflected signal.  The reflected signal should be very
small at millions of miles, shouldn't it?

Here's a variation.  Suppose the asteroid has a very strong magnetic field
oriented SN compared to earth's NS.  This would generate a field that could
trap lightning eminations (whistlers) that would bounce back and forth just
like they do between earth's magnetic poles. The oscillating pressure
inside the field lines might create a low frequncy field line oscillation?

Back to your point.  Our own ELF signals might be reflected by such a field
line linkage?  Kind of like strumming a big string from one end.  It still
seems like this is not a viable explanation, unless there is a feedback
mechanism to amplify the oscillation some way.


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:39:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26715;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:38:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:38:03 -0800
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: <3640ACD7.D52C874E css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:36:55 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <v01530501b26658cdccb0 [208.228.222.189]> <36409F9A.205BE6C5@verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hi7eJ.0.LX6.QqAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24117
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi Ucar wrote:
> May John Steck is right about that NSA  will simply erase the site 
> and will not make their logo here. But the Geocities Logo is automatically 
> inserted to the pages, there is no method to suppress this.

Think about it, why would they bother taking the time to change the HTML on the
index page?  This is a fabrication by the site owner.

> BTW, I think to put the NSA logo in your page is a risky business to 
> entertain yourself.

No less risky than announcing online you have located an interstellar signal....
8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:44:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15024;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530503b2665dd5fb45 [208.228.222.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:39:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Project 415
Resent-Message-ID: <"wQYbV.0.dg3.utAGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24118
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Is 415 the number of an earth crossing asteroid by any chance?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:49:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA31921;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:48:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:48:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3640AF72.4E81460B ariel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:48:02 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <v01530501b26658cdccb0 [208.228.222.189]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vWtFc3.0.go7.szAGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24119
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> At 5:51 PM 11/4/98, Hamdi Ucar wrote:
> [snip]
> >This is great. Page is changed in last hours prior to this letter. These
> >guys are serious nodoubt. May we ask to B.Beaty to continue this tread
> >before we all receive the same logo on our letters.
> 
> Note the GeoCities logo on the bottom right corner of the gif.  This is
> simply some kind of statement or hype by them I would suppose.  Kind of
> like Art Bell quitting?
> 

That Geocities logo is on every single (free) Geocities home page,
regardless of the content.

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:56:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02364;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:55:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:55:10 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130501b2666cd9b171 [38.27.23.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:04:27 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"n-hlT1.0.sa.S4BGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24120
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Evan Soule' wrote:
>>
>> It is reasonable to state that many previous 'civilizations' of note have
>> crumbled.  While the historical details may differ, essentially these
>> 'civilizations' have fundamentally crumbled for the same reason -- a
>> "supply and demand" reason:
>>
>> "The ideological demand for security was met with a political supply of
>> tyranny."   --- Andrew J. Galambos, astrophysicist
>>
>> Evan Soule'
>
>I suppose that might be true but it sounds like another
>over-simplification.  This civilization (well democratic parts anyway)
>has set up the ability to speak your piece.  And for the time being,
>people are still defending that right in the face of those who try to
>take it away.  IOW, the common man still has power - even the conspiracy
>nuts can scream and yell.  If they couldn't, they'd have a point.
>
>Terren

Dear Terren,

Thanks for your comments.

No doubt it's a "generalization" --- and, of course, everyone knows that
"all generalizations are false"!  <joke! :-) >

In ancient Egypt, a man who was a "slave" knew he was a slave.  It was
reasonably obvious: he was a slave economically and he was a slave in terms
of physically being unable to speak out against his slavery without threat
of retaliation.

I've heard the question, "How can someone be not enslaved if they 'think
they are free' but become economically enslaved?"  Such an individual,
under such conditions, has been coerced --- not principally by FORCE, but
by FRAUD.  In effect, their mind has been enslaved by a fraud mechanism.
There are only two methods for political mechanisms to coerce: by _force_
or by _fraud_ (or both).

The age-old force-state (primarily employing force) has been essentially
replaced by the fraud-state (primarily employing fraud).  The latter is a
much more potent method of coercion.

And, certainly, a given vocal number can still retain the _liberty_ to
speak out against coercion.  But are such individuals _free_?  Not if an
ever-increasing amount of their economic productivity (for instance) is
taken from them by force.

If a southern plantation owner tells his "workers": "You are 'free' to
critcize me amongst yourselves, but just remember that you will pay me a
goodly portion of what you earn. And you can anticipate that this portion
will increase over the years. I will also control you in a variety of ways.
Otherwise, enjoy your 'freedoms.'"

If this is "freedom," then you are more than welcome to my share of it.

Best regards,

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:01:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05008;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:00:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:00:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3640A6F1.CCF6AE1B verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:11:45 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <v01530501b26658cdccb0 [208.228.222.189]> <36409F9A.205BE6C5@verisoft.com.tr> <3640ACD7.D52C874E@css.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZIJjD3.0.AE1.I9BGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24121
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:
> 

> Think about it, why would they bother taking the time to change the HTML on the
> index page?  This is a fabrication by the site owner.

This is possible, but you need to owning the page by changing passwords etc. This is also require an effort. Otherwise owner of the page can restore everything within minutes without knowing why their pages are erased. 

Look, the owner of the page is/was stated on the page  he/she is unknown. If he/she did not gave his info to geocities, it is very hardly to locate it. So there is no easy method to inform the author about the situation.

> 
> No less risky than announcing online you have located an interstellar signal....
> 8^)
> 

Yes, you are right.

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:04:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07204;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:03:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:03:39 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104201006.00e53d74 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:10:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Diss quote
Resent-Message-ID: <"1onxt3.0.Pm1.QCBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24122
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:32 AM 11/3/98 -0600, you wrote:

>I don't have your particular book in front of me but it is standard
>practice to refer to De (109.5 kcal/mole) as the potential energy of the H2
>molecule.  It is vitally important to realize that De is a NEGATIVE
>quantity! It represents how much work (minus the ground state energy) you
>have to do on the molecule to take it apart.


Is this the proper definition for De?

>
>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:08:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09366;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:06:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:06:23 -0800
Message-Id: <199811042005.OAA17051 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:04:32 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"B72IN1.0.EI2._EBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24123
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/
>
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="HTML">
>  <TITLE>...</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000">
>
><P ALIGN=CENTER><IMG SRC="nsa.gif" WIDTH=
>"279" HEIGHT="129" ALIGN="BOTTOM" NATURALSIZEFLAG="3">
></BODY>
></HTML>
>
>
>nsa.gif is the logo of the US National Security Agency. All other subpages are
>either removed or replaced by NSA logo also.
>
>
>List of pages prior to NSA
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/betastrange.html
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/blacksedan.html
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/hacked.html
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/identity.html
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/japan.html
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/latest.html
>
>This is great. Page is changed in last hours prior to this letter. These guys
>are serious nodoubt. May we ask to B.Beaty to continue this tread before we
>all receive the same logo on our letters.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar

***{Hi, Hamdi. Well, this issue is obviously not going away, so despite my
earlier decision to shut up about it, there is clearly no point. With
everybody screaming at the same time, the MIB's aren't likely to even
notice my two cents worth.

As I predicted, the situation has become so filled with misinformation and
disinformation that no proof one way or the other is possible. On the one
hand, we have allegations of MIB involvement, and now this NSA logo
appearing on the geocities web pages. On the other, we have some guy who
may or may not be Paul Dore claiming that his curriculum vitae was
misappropriated by a hoaxer. (By the way, even if he *is* Paul Dore, how do
we decide whether this latest claim is made honestly, or under duress?) In
addition, we have claims of no SETI hit by large, narrow beam, government
controlled radiotelescopes, and claims of hits by radioastronomy hobbyists
using small, wide beam, privately owned radiotelescopes. We have photos of
black sedans and tales of intimidation by NSA operatives, etc. Amid the
complexities, somewhere, there is the truth. However, finding it is going
to depend on judgment--i.e., on an experience based assessment of
complexities--rather than on simple linear logic from clearly established
facts to a clearly defined conclusion.

Take the NSA logo, for example. It is crystal clear that NSA would not
openly censor the geocities site, right? That is, they might shut them
down, but they would try to do it in secrecy. They certainly wouldn't
require the site administrator to broadcast the NSA logo! Therefore the
logos, logically, must be an indication from the site administrators that
they have been visited by the men in black, and told to stop talking about
this topic. That is the most reasonable inference to draw from this event.
*However*, it is also possible that the logos are the site administrator's
way of saying "Gotcha!"--i.e., of saying that he perpetrated this whole
thing as a hoax, and is now rubbing our noses in it. Result: the assessment
of this situation has become a matter of judgment, which is crucially
dependent on each individual's personal history of thought and experience.
Judgment depends on what you have seen and experienced, and on the thinking
you have done or failed to do. While it can be rational or irrational, it
arises from matters that  are so complex as to preclude resolution by means
of argumentation. (Unless, of course, the parties are willing to argue for
months or years.)

What this means is that  this episode has now taken its place alongside all
the other supposed "proofs" of the existence of extraterrestrials. Like the
others, it is now a matter which we either believe or disbelieve, depending
most fundamentally on the kinds of people we are. Conformists are free to
follow their inclinations, and treat the matter as a hoax; and heretics are
free to follow theirs, and treat it is real. Since conformists vastly
outnumber heretics, and since we live in societies where, for the most
part, the majority rules, that means if extraterrestrials are real, they
are going to have to do something drastic--e.g., park a flying saucer on
the lawn of the White House--or their existence is going to remain in doubt
by the public at large.

Later, slaves.

--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:21:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15738;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:17:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:17:55 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b26662c6b36c [12.72.128.93]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b2665dd5fb45 [208.228.222.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:14:40 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Project 415
Resent-Message-ID: <"qApFc.0.er3.pPBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24124
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace -

>Is 415 the number of an earth crossing asteroid by any chance?
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

It's a common grafitti theme. "4:15, time to smoke a joint". It was also
used in a U.S. crop circle recently that Linda Howe thought was genuine for
some reason. It's the signature of a hoax. If the Geocities site just
posted "this has all been a hoax", would it be any clearer?

Here's what I find odd. The website and all the information on it is
clearly bogus. A total hoax, and a poorly constructed obvious one (I can
see the identical pixel groups on the supposedly "different" Dore
screendumps without any software, just look closely). That leaves the
question of the signal. Could there really have been a signal behind the
hoax, or is it just coincidence? In other words, could Mitchell Jones be
more right than even *he* thought? An obvious hoax intended as a preemptive
strike against an anomalous signal that people are likely to notice
eventually? I really don't think so, but the suspicious mind does like to
wander...

I think the case for coincidence is strong. It's a lame hoax, and there are
a lot of sats up there. Look at one point in the sky, and over any given
period, you are likely to see a sat. Remember, the only *reliable* data
point is the Australian observation. The rest are all from the hoax site!
Essentially we really have just one datum, and there's no reason at all to
believe it's not a sat.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:25:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21153;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3640B6D8.EF737E55 ariel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:19:36 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
References: <199811042005.OAA17051 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eV3Jx2.0.LA5.fUBGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24125
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello in there, Mitchell... is the sky blue in your world?  :-)

Terren

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> What this means is that  this episode has now taken its place alongside all
> the other supposed "proofs" of the existence of extraterrestrials. Like the
> others, it is now a matter which we either believe or disbelieve, depending
> most fundamentally on the kinds of people we are. Conformists are free to
> follow their inclinations, and treat the matter as a hoax; and heretics are
> free to follow theirs, and treat it is real. Since conformists vastly
> outnumber heretics, and since we live in societies where, for the most
> part, the majority rules, that means if extraterrestrials are real, they
> are going to have to do something drastic--e.g., park a flying saucer on
> the lawn of the White House--or their existence is going to remain in doubt
> by the public at large.
> 
> Later, slaves.
> 
> --Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:38:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24210;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:36:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:36:25 -0800
Message-ID: <027601be0832$5b3a7fa0$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Project 415
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:33:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"E4OsM3.0.Cw5.9hBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24126
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Project 415

Let's see, Chicken Licken, Henny Penny, and  Ducky Lucky are in a twit.

I  recently read , but can't recall where, that there are Sats around
100,000 miles out, and their mission was stated. I think it was discussed in
the news releases concerning the launch of the "SMART ION DRIVE" Space probe
a week or so ago.

Regards,  Frederick

Rick wrote:


>Horace -
>
>>Is 415 the number of an earth crossing asteroid by any chance?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Horace Heffner
>
>It's a common grafitti theme. "4:15, time to smoke a joint". It was also
>used in a U.S. crop circle recently that Linda Howe thought was genuine for
>some reason. It's the signature of a hoax. If the Geocities site just
>posted "this has all been a hoax", would it be any clearer?
>
>Here's what I find odd. The website and all the information on it is
>clearly bogus. A total hoax, and a poorly constructed obvious one (I can
>see the identical pixel groups on the supposedly "different" Dore
>screendumps without any software, just look closely). That leaves the
>question of the signal. Could there really have been a signal behind the
>hoax, or is it just coincidence? In other words, could Mitchell Jones be
>more right than even *he* thought? An obvious hoax intended as a preemptive
>strike against an anomalous signal that people are likely to notice
>eventually? I really don't think so, but the suspicious mind does like to
>wander...
>
>I think the case for coincidence is strong. It's a lame hoax, and there are
>a lot of sats up there. Look at one point in the sky, and over any given
>period, you are likely to see a sat. Remember, the only *reliable* data
>point is the Australian observation. The rest are all from the hoax site!
>Essentially we really have just one datum, and there's no reason at all to
>believe it's not a sat.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:49:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA30804;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:48:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:48:15 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104205511.00e4a098 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:55:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"V77Tb3.0.8X7.EsBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24128
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 11:56 PM 11/3/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>people from Vortex-L as are interested to participate. I was a founder of
>>the Boston Virtual Reality Group (formerly the Boston Computer Society
>>Virtual Reality Group). We (my associate V & I) produced 3D solid models
>for
>>the annual SIGGRAPH virtual reality group project for 4 out of 5 years in a
>>row. SIGGRAPH is the biggest computer graphics conferance held annually.
>>Companies were always there to loan state of the art VR equipment to base
>>our immersive environments on.  One year, we ran a $150,000.00 SGI Reality
>>Engine! I want to try the same effort of group participation on projects.
>
>Why are you not still into VR then? It seems to me there will be heavy
>profits in that in the near future with the entertainment industry.


I am still involved with VR. If a university is successful in finding a
grant, I will be hardware consultant for the lab. I will also help interface
with local industries to find applications for VR and do them as class projects.

A buddy is in the midst of patent infringement litigation with a few
corporations. When he gets time, we'll be working on some new circuitry for
VR applications.

I was usurped from the BVRG by the director whom I helped promote to that
position. He was good at getting industry speakers for the group meetings in
ways that are still a mystery to me. I was good at brain storming
colaborative project efforts for group participation. I think the director
didn't want to share the work that freely. There was a select few that would
seem to always get the side contracts that would be discovered after the
fact. My partner and I put some 500 - 600 man hours into technical
contributions fo the group SIGGRAPH projects and I thought that would gain
some respect into what we had to say. After many hints, some less subtle
than others, as to the physical acts that would be required for one to get
into the 'core' group, I suppressed my urge to throw up and decided that if
hard work was not enough, the group was on the wrong track. So I left. To my
knowledge, they will no longer participate in SIGGRAPH projects in the future.

Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:53:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25301;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3640BBD4.1C4802E0 ariel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:40:52 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
References: <v02130501b2666cd9b171 [38.27.23.187]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WjZ8O3.0.EB6.StBGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24127
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Dear Terren,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> No doubt it's a "generalization" --- and, of course, everyone knows that
> "all generalizations are false"!  <joke! :-) >
> 
> In ancient Egypt, a man who was a "slave" knew he was a slave.  It was
> reasonably obvious: he was a slave economically and he was a slave in terms
> of physically being unable to speak out against his slavery without threat
> of retaliation.
> 
> I've heard the question, "How can someone be not enslaved if they 'think
> they are free' but become economically enslaved?"  Such an individual,
> under such conditions, has been coerced --- not principally by FORCE, but
> by FRAUD.  In effect, their mind has been enslaved by a fraud mechanism.
> There are only two methods for political mechanisms to coerce: by _force_
> or by _fraud_ (or both).
> 
> The age-old force-state (primarily employing force) has been essentially
> replaced by the fraud-state (primarily employing fraud).  The latter is a
> much more potent method of coercion.
> 
> And, certainly, a given vocal number can still retain the _liberty_ to
> speak out against coercion.  But are such individuals _free_?  Not if an
> ever-increasing amount of their economic productivity (for instance) is
> taken from them by force.
> 
> If a southern plantation owner tells his "workers": "You are 'free' to
> critcize me amongst yourselves, but just remember that you will pay me a
> goodly portion of what you earn. And you can anticipate that this portion
> will increase over the years. I will also control you in a variety of ways.
> Otherwise, enjoy your 'freedoms.'"
> 
> If this is "freedom," then you are more than welcome to my share of it.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Evan Soule'

How melodramatic.  Do you know how many billions of third-world
impoverished souls would jump at the chance for your share of this
freedom?  Apparantly you think you are economically enslaved by the
system, but it's your choice to think that. You're a lot better off than
probly 95% of the world's population.

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 12:52:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31872;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:49:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:49:50 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104205647.00e6771c popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:56:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wc4XC3.0.vn7.jtBGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24129
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I was!

Dennis


At 09:32 AM 11/4/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Bill Wallace wrote:
>> ??? wrote:
>> >people from Vortex-L as are interested to participate. I was a founder of
>> >the Boston Virtual Reality Group (formerly the Boston Computer Society
>> >Virtual Reality Group). 
>
>I missed the original message.  Who here was a founder of the BVRG?


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 13:10:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10313;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:08:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:08:01 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3640C210.145DE19B css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:07:28 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
References: <1.5.4.32.19981104205647.00e6771c popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"II4np2.0.xW2.m8CGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24130
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> I was!

Nice to see some tube-jockey talent in the mix.  The SIGGRAPH stuff was good
work.  What's paying the bills for you now?


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 13:20:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29127;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <029301be0837$c2bf6820$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:11:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"DNHoN1.0.177.QICGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24131
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)

John Steck wrote:


>Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>> I was!
>
>Nice to see some tube-jockey talent in the mix.  The SIGGRAPH stuff was
good
>work.  What's paying the bills for you now?

Evidently advertising his "Tall Ships" webpage
on Vortex-L by posting irrelevant gibberish.

FJS

>
>
>--
>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets
>   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 13:34:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20934;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:31:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:31:57 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104213836.00e6818c popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:38:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments
Resent-Message-ID: <"nPnHb2.0.y65.DVCGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24132
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Couldn't we just ask for an investigation by lawmakers to use advanced
technology to trim the icecap? Surely they could lift iceblocks to Earth
orbit and deserts if the technology were released. What about the weather in
South America lately? Maybe your right about leaving well enough alone.

Dennis



At 09:34 AM 11/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>> we have from our government:
>>         1. No geophysical icecap crisis analysis
>>         2. No admission or offer of technology needed
>>         3. Government can fix problem but will not.
>
>Dennis, ever watch CSPAN?  I am often suprised most don't need velcro straps on
>their shoes.  If you are looking for an organized logical effort to do
anything,
>don't look to the government.  They couldn't all get in line by height for a
>fire drill let alone conspire to keep a secret.  As for fixing things, as
far as
>I can recall, I don't remember any government ever truly fixing ANYTHING.  The
>brush stroke is typically too big and usually winds up only making a bigger
>mess.
>
>BTW, I have no doubt a report on the situation does exist, but it's been safely
>filed in triplicate for some future archeologist to find and wonder about.  8^)


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 14:04:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA32441;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:57:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:57:06 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:54:11 -0800
Message-Id: <199811041354.FAA09663 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: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"zd15A.0.mw7.nsCGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24133
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>> And, certainly, a given vocal number can still retain the _liberty_ to
>> speak out against coercion.  But are such individuals _free_?  Not if an
>> ever-increasing amount of their economic productivity (for instance) is
>> taken from them by force.

Let's see, "taken from them by **force**", oh yeah, that is a physics term
right there.  And silly me, I thought that all these hundreds of vortex
emails passing through my computer needed to be deleted without reading
because there is no more science.  But there it is, a "force" in this email
discussion.

Come on guys this is nuts.  Let the slaves take their earnings and buy a
ticket to the promised land if that is what they want.  If Evan doesn't like
his freedom, he can buy a ticket to the jungles of Brazil and live as the
natives still do, or to China to eat noodles and stir fry.  

Is this a scientific forum, or a chat room.

Please, don't respond, I don't read your emails any longer.  I delete nearly
every vortex message that comes through with just an occaisional message
where the topic sounds like there is a remote chance of some science being
inside.

I am close to cancelling my subscription due to the lack of scientific
discussion, as banter isn't of interest to me.  There is plenty to discuss
on scientific grounds.  I would prefer that the discussion be pushed in a
direction of more scientific value rather than needing to cut off another
set of ears.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 14:23:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10816;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:22:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:22:43 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130500b26691904fd8 [38.27.23.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:31:56 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Uahp2.0.qe2.oEDGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24134
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> Dear Terren,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> No doubt it's a "generalization" --- and, of course, everyone knows that
>> "all generalizations are false"!  <joke! :-) >
>>
>> In ancient Egypt, a man who was a "slave" knew he was a slave.  It was
>> reasonably obvious: he was a slave economically and he was a slave in terms
>> of physically being unable to speak out against his slavery without threat
>> of retaliation.
>>
>> I've heard the question, "How can someone be not enslaved if they 'think
>> they are free' but become economically enslaved?"  Such an individual,
>> under such conditions, has been coerced --- not principally by FORCE, but
>> by FRAUD.  In effect, their mind has been enslaved by a fraud mechanism.
>> There are only two methods for political mechanisms to coerce: by _force_
>> or by _fraud_ (or both).
>>
>> The age-old force-state (primarily employing force) has been essentially
>> replaced by the fraud-state (primarily employing fraud).  The latter is a
>> much more potent method of coercion.
>>
>> And, certainly, a given vocal number can still retain the _liberty_ to
>> speak out against coercion.  But are such individuals _free_?  Not if an
>> ever-increasing amount of their economic productivity (for instance) is
>> taken from them by force.
>>
>> If a southern plantation owner tells his "workers": "You are 'free' to
>> critcize me amongst yourselves, but just remember that you will pay me a
>> goodly portion of what you earn. And you can anticipate that this portion
>> will increase over the years. I will also control you in a variety of ways.
>> Otherwise, enjoy your 'freedoms.'"
>>
>> If this is "freedom," then you are more than welcome to my share of it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Evan Soule'
>
>How melodramatic.  Do you know how many billions of third-world
>impoverished souls would jump at the chance for your share of this
>freedom?  Apparantly you think you are economically enslaved by the
>system, but it's your choice to think that. You're a lot better off than
>probly 95% of the world's population.
>
>Terren


Dear Terren,

Thanks for your comments.

How melodramatic is your statement of melodrama.  And are these "billions
of third-world improverished souls" impoverished through "over-population"
or "undercapitalization"?  The answer, in part, depends upon whether one
chooses to be a negativist or a positivist.  And yes while it IS my choice
to think that I am economically coerced by 'the system' --- it is also a
fact.  In other words, whether I happen to choose to think or not to think
it so (my primary property in this regard), is is also an operational fact.


And with regard to your last sentence (and to employ your percentage
figures):  I would hope that one would agree that it would be better to
endeavor to non-coercively assist 95% of the world's population in becoming
as well off as the other 5%, rather than to coercively drag the 5% down to
the level of the other 95%.

Best regards,

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 14:39:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16603;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:37:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:37:47 -0800
Message-ID: <02b201be0843$51d076c0$b2b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:34:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"BZKKD.0.L34.wSDGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24136
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!

Soule wrote:
>
>Dear Terren,
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>How melodramatic is your statement of melodrama.  And are these "billions
>of third-world improverished souls" impoverished through "over-population"
>or "undercapitalization"?  The answer, in part, depends upon whether one
>chooses to be a negativist or a positivist.  And yes while it IS my choice
>to think that I am economically coerced by 'the system' --- it is also a
>fact.  In other words, whether I happen to choose to think or not to think
>it so (my primary property in this regard), is is also an operational fact.
>
>
>And with regard to your last sentence (and to employ your percentage
>figures):  I would hope that one would agree that it would be better to
>endeavor to non-coercively assist 95% of the world's population in becoming
>as well off as the other 5%, rather than to coercively drag the 5% down to
>the level of the other 95%.

If the Jack-Asses like yourself keep up the radical lunacy you spread, you
will accomplish just that!

FJS
>
>Best regards,
>
>Evan Soule'
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 14:46:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06705;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v02130501b26694c91144 [38.27.23.107]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:44:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"4ef1w3.0.ge1.QYDGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24137
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>> And, certainly, a given vocal number can still retain the _liberty_ to
>>> speak out against coercion.  But are such individuals _free_?  Not if an
>>> ever-increasing amount of their economic productivity (for instance) is
>>> taken from them by force.
>
>Let's see, "taken from them by **force**", oh yeah, that is a physics term
>right there.  And silly me, I thought that all these hundreds of vortex
>emails passing through my computer needed to be deleted without reading
>because there is no more science.  But there it is, a "force" in this email
>discussion.
>
>Come on guys this is nuts.  Let the slaves take their earnings and buy a
>ticket to the promised land if that is what they want.  If Evan doesn't like
>his freedom, he can buy a ticket to the jungles of Brazil and live as the
>natives still do, or to China to eat noodles and stir fry.
>
>Is this a scientific forum, or a chat room.
>
>Please, don't respond, I don't read your emails any longer.  I delete nearly
>every vortex message that comes through with just an occaisional message
>where the topic sounds like there is a remote chance of some science being
>inside.
>
>I am close to cancelling my subscription due to the lack of scientific
>discussion, as banter isn't of interest to me.  There is plenty to discuss
>on scientific grounds.  I would prefer that the discussion be pushed in a
>direction of more scientific value rather than needing to cut off another
>set of ears.
>
>Ross Tessien

Now, Ross, _that's_ being melodramatic.  LOL!! :-)

If the natives in the jungles of Brazil or the people in China sported high
technology and respected all forms of property, then yes, those WOULD be
viable relocation options.  I am more interested in doing what I can to
help to build a stable and durable civilization that IS based on "Freedom"
and respect for all forms of property.  High physical and volitional
science technology combined with the operational base historically referred
to as the "American Revolution" (which is a derivative of the Newtonian
Revolution) is a good place to begin such construction.

Thanks for your comments.

Best regards,

Evan




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 14:43:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13674;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:30:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:30:10 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104223659.00e649f8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:36:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"mrP513.0.aL3.oLDGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24135
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

I do freelance AutoCad 3D and AutoLisp programming. I drank a coffee from a
client that had access to it. He acted very strangely. I think I made a mistake.


Dennis


At 03:07 PM 11/4/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>> I was!
>
>Nice to see some tube-jockey talent in the mix.  The SIGGRAPH stuff was good
>work.  What's paying the bills for you now?
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 15:03:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08075;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981104230331.00e600d8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:03:31 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: History (was Re: I'll just start postin'?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d76xu1.0.3-1.PnDGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24138
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

OK, I was stupid to think we could get some kind of cooperation from anyone.
I am sorry. I recently drank coffee that a very strange acting client had
access to. Please look into my well being in the future.

Do the research and you will have second thoughts on calling this gibberish.
This problem could be fixed if the government could become honest about
things. Now I'm really being stupid. Sorry but I had to try.


Dennis


At 02:11 PM 11/4/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Evidently advertising his "Tall Ships" webpage
>on Vortex-L by posting irrelevant gibberish.

PS This is for an artist in our art community who will donate a portion of
the proceeds to trying to save our community from the landlord's excessively
profit minded actions. No luck on the page yet.


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 15:27:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05698;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:26:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:26:10 -0800
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: <3640E27B.8AE2EA7C css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:25:47 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Research Grants?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"INuWT.0.xO1.HAEGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24139
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vorts-

Is there any information or websites on research grants for individuals that
anyone might recommend to someone without a Ph.D. or university association?  I
have a structure designed that I want to try and build.  Loosely described, is a
passive gravity/vortex/resonance experiment (natural rotationally induced EMF
resonance coupling and accumulation).  It is a big, geometric, magnetic grade
stainless steel construct (approx. 40 ft tall) that just may also qualify as an
art sculpture (I already have plans to court the art world folks).  Even if the
idea fails, would look nice in a park, university, or corporate landscape
somewhere.  At this point any funding options are welcome.  Also, I am looking
for a place to put it.  Any suggestions are welcome, public or private.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 15:58:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20477;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:56:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:56:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b2669a893e1a [208.228.222.129]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:02:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"DurWm3.0.c_4.UcEGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24140
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:04 PM 11/4/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:


>***{Hi, Hamdi. Well, this issue is obviously not going away, so despite my
>earlier decision to shut up about it, there is clearly no point. With
>everybody screaming at the same time, the MIB's aren't likely to even
>notice my two cents worth.

Like it would really bother you and your dozens of pit bulls.  It will take
more than two MIB to vist *you* I'll bet.   8^)

BTW, most of the telescopes (about 500?) of the current SETI project are
amateur owned and operated.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:20:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27250;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:13:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:13:33 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105002017.00e349bc popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:20:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"bBial3.0.hf6.jsEGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24141
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 05:44 PM 11/4/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>
>>I am close to cancelling my subscription due to the lack of scientific
>>discussion, as banter isn't of interest to me.  There is plenty to discuss
>>on scientific grounds.  I would prefer that the discussion be pushed in a
>>direction of more scientific value rather than needing to cut off another
>>set of ears.


Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer. Is this the proper
definition of dissociation energy?


>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:26:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA11731;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v02130504b266ae721740 [38.27.23.107]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:29:05 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
Resent-Message-ID: <"doZkt2.0.Bt2.d_EGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24142
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Men in Black Visit Paul Dore!
>
>Soule wrote:
>>
>>Dear Terren,
>>
>>Thanks for your comments.
>>
>>How melodramatic is your statement of melodrama.  And are these "billions
>>of third-world improverished souls" impoverished through "over-population"
>>or "undercapitalization"?  The answer, in part, depends upon whether one
>>chooses to be a negativist or a positivist.  And yes while it IS my choice
>>to think that I am economically coerced by 'the system' --- it is also a
>>fact.  In other words, whether I happen to choose to think or not to think
>>it so (my primary property in this regard), is is also an operational fact.
>>
>>
>>And with regard to your last sentence (and to employ your percentage
>>figures):  I would hope that one would agree that it would be better to
>>endeavor to non-coercively assist 95% of the world's population in becoming
>>as well off as the other 5%, rather than to coercively drag the 5% down to
>>the level of the other 95%.
>
>If the Jack-Asses like yourself keep up the radical lunacy you spread, you
>will accomplish just that!
>
>FJS
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Evan Soule'
>>
>>

Dear Fred,

Thanks for your kind, erudite and meaningful comment.  Obviously you have
put much thought into your radical lunacy.  :-)

Very best regards,

Evan


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:25:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00181;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:23:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:23:40 -0800
Message-ID: <3640F10A.5E80 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:27:54 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Heffner: CF skepticism  11.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9RcPG1.0.l2.B0FGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24143
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Heffner: Blue's critiques 11.2.98
  Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:38:33 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> I'll agree that Blue might be on the correct side of the issue, but if he
> is, it is by chance!  He is certainly taking the safe side in one sense,
in
> that he sticks with conventional tried an true theory.  He continually
> argues that various reported experiments must be wrong because the
results
> don't agree with this or that accepted theory.  Theories don't generally
> get accepted without a lot of corroberation, both published and
> non-published.  It is no surprise when accepted theory predicts such and
> such a result and those results are observed time and again or used in
> experimental design of unrelated issues. No one reports that kind of
thing,
> the repeated occurance of expected results.  Blue undoubtedly has lots of
> experience of that nature that confirms his beliefs in present theory.
> Where Blue is not on the safe side of things is that, as the number of
> publications reporting anomalies grows, the probability that increasing
> numbers of skilled experimentalists are bungling things grows vanishingly
> small.  The CF publications continue unabated.  Blue is now out into a
> realm of faith I think, and faith is not science.
>

I would like to thank Horace for his support of my position, but I fear
he misrepresents how it is that I arrive here as a long-term critic of
essentially all cold fusion (or CANR) claims.  Of course I have a "bias"
that derives from my knowledge and experience as a physicist.  As I have
said many times new data does not automatically override the information
that is already at hand. It is not that I unquestionably accept only the
old established truths and will reject any and all new claims that
appear to be in conflict with those old truths.  Rather it is that I
profess (and I hope adhere to) a belief that there is a proper, rational
way to address any conflicts that arise in order to arrive at the best
logically consistant interpretation of the summary result.  My charge
against the CF advocates has been, and remains, that they
have not been willing to conform to the practices that I believe should
be followed if we are to resolve the conflicts between claims for CF
success and what is the proper, orthodox understanding of nuclear
reaction physics at the most basic level.

To label this conflict as "experiment vs. theory" with CF claims being
the experiments and my orthodoxy as theory is a gross distortion of the
facts. My orthodox theory is actually a convenient summary for perhaps
60 years worth of experimental results -- data obtained from experiments
executed with at least as much care and skill as any of the new claims
for CF success. These are results that have been replicated, reviewed,
reexamined, and refined to a degree that is certainly now matched by
few, if any, of the CF
experiments.

The assertion of the advocates has long been that critics, like me, have
simply chosen to ignore the evidence for CF success while we cling
irrationally to our old beliefs.  What I have been pointing out,
however, is the fact that it is the believers in cold fusion who must
repeatedly reject, without any justification, results which call their
beliefs into question.  If they were simply to place all the
calorimetric results on the table and form the grand average the "excess
heat" that remains would fade to a level of insignificance.  It is only
by selecting the data they like that they have anything to discuss
further.  Surely the process for selecting the data must be examined
very carefully.

As I have said many times, if we are to address claims for the induction
of some nuclear reaction process evidence that derives most directly
from and is most specific to said process clearly should play some role
in the experimental protocols.  I am at a loss to understand why anyone
would seek to downplay the significance of such observations as neutron
emission or the lack thereof, unless they simply are not interested in
seeking a resolution of the questions posed by CF claims.  If the debate
is to center on the question of whether there is a high-energy source
for "excess heat" it just makes good sense to attempt to detect the
energy source as early in the chain that links the source to the
ultimate sink of lattice heating as is possible.  The signal-to-noise
ratio does not improve as the energy degrades to the thermal level of
perhaps 400 degrees C. 

Of course experiments conforming to my notions of what is proper have
been conducted by several highly skilled and well equipped laboratories.
The results are in and we essentially know that there is no evidence
for any nuclear source at high excitation energy at anytime during the
supposed CF process.  If you accept this evidence at face value there
is no alternative but to suggest that the calorimetric measurements are
not correct.  That, I believe, has led CF advocates to circle the wagons
and to pretend that their evidence is, without doubt, valid and correct
and simply should not be called into question.

Now I do not insist that each and every calorimetric measurement showing
"excess heat" is automatically wrong and that it should be rejected
without further consideration.  However, I think there is very good
reason to subject all such claims to very special scrutiny.  The history
of this debate and the actions of CF advocates have naturally resulted
in the raising of the bar to set a higher standard which any new claims
must meet.

However, when one examines many of the experiments that are cited with
reverence by CF advocates they simply do not meet even ordinary
standards for scientific research.  There are many rather obvious flaws
in experimental technique and in claimed results.  Still the advocates
claim to be mystified and hurt by the way their claims have been
received by the broader scientific community.  It should be no mystery
why I, for example, would question Takahashi's claim for the detection
of 7 MeV neutrons when the data he presents involves rates like 2 counts
per day in a detector that responds to a variety of background sources.
Simply stated, you don't get conclusive results at that level with the
equipment Takahashi employed.

Now if I can find case after case in which the instrumentation was
simply tortured until it confessed to whatever pleased the experimenter
it's easy to slip into a generalization which says that all these
experiments are hog wash.  The claims by De Nino, Pons and Fleischmann,
Yamaguchi, and many, many others should have been rejected ages ago
and forgotten.  That is what I have been calling upon Ed Storms to do,
but it seems unlikely that he, or any other believers, will ever
acknowledge that it is actually possible to screw up a simple
calorimeter experiment if you are determined to do so.

It just seems to me to be a serious strategic error on the part of
CF advocates to continue to hold on to all of the data in order
to make their case as strong as possible.  My advice is that they
need to clean house to prove that they can actually excercise reasonable
critical judgement with respect to these questions.  Again I will
refer to accepted scientific practice, whereby weighted averages
are employed when combining results of different measurements.  Under
those circumstances the ultimate outcome is generally determined by
only the most precise measurements.  That means that very little is
lost when the poorer measurements are simply discarded and ignored.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:32:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03635;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:31:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:31:15 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b266a0218eb1 [208.228.222.129]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:37:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ivk22.0.fu.J7FGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24144
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 5:54 AM 11/4/98, Ross Tessien wrote:
[snip]
>Is this a scientific forum, or a chat room.
>


Why on earth will no one act to limit valid topics here?  Otherwise, this
list is or soon will be toast.  There will be seven thousand subscribers
with nothing but conspiratorial UFOs between their ears.

If limiting topics is not acceptable how about forming a new list?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:35:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04709;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:33:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:33:24 -0800
Message-ID: <3640F352.1716 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:37:38 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Britz: CF may be real  11.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Lo_9L1.0.V91.J9FGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24145
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Murray: Rothwell: best CF research? 11.3.98
       Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:36:06 +0100
       From: britz <britz kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science
(DAIMI)
 Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion
 References: 1

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Rich Murray wrote:

[...]
> Rothwell refers to Dieter Britz's bibliography of  >1,000 peer-reviewed
> CF papers, but Britz himself, who probably has read this literature more
> than anyone over the years, to my knowledge is only convinced enough to
> state that more research is needed.  Do I have that right?

More or less. I don't read Vortex-L, having signed off again, by the
way.  I have to say, though, although I have indeed read all the papers
in the bibliography and have most of them, Rothwell and Mallove have
probably read them even more closely, as well as the others that I
exclude. For me, this has become a sideline, as I have normal work to
do.

But you are right; I mainly don't believe CNF is real, but I can't
absolutely rule it out, on the strength of some quality+ papers. These
mean that more research might be justified. There are not many,
though.  It is no use saying that there have been other important
fields where initially, there were problems with reproducibility.
Until an effect can be reproduced at will, it is uncertain. In those
other areas (transistors, surface catalysis, etc), this was
achieved. Random successes are not proof, no matter how many there
are, as long as they are overwhelmed by nonsuccesses. We are free to
be interested, or not. There have indeed been claims at various times
that one group or another now has a handle on the effect, and can do
it any time.  This ought to be a breakthrough. Where have they gone?
They ought to be big news.

When I say that I give "CNF" a slight chance (as I do), I am referring
to evidence of tritium and some excess heat, from those few quality
papers, and maybe fractofusion.  I do not give any chance to
light-water CNF, especially as based on Mills' "theory", or -- with all
due and enormous respect for Bockris -- to transmutation involving
heavier elements, such as the role of Pd, or the like.  I am just a
amateur in physics but I have read enough to know that fusion with
heavier elements is even less likely than d-d fusion, and certainly
I'd have to be shown those kgs of osmium or whatever, supposedly made
by transmutation, before I'd believe it.

-- Dieter Britz.    Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:39:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06847;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:37:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:37:47 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105004439.00e50ba4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:44:39 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Murray: Rothwell: best CF claims?  11.3.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"C1LRC.0.og1.QDFGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24146
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


Just two things.


1. Put monatomic palladium in water and build magnetic field until it
reaches critical superconducting magnetic field. When the superconducting
field collapses check for unexpected particle presence.

2. Is this the proper definition of dissociation energy?

>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."

Dennis


At 06:13 PM 11/3/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:
>Nov. 3, 1998    Hello all,    I notice Jed Rothwell has not mentioned
>many reknown claimants to CF research fame and success, such as Arata &
>Zhang, Mizuno et al, CETI & Miley, Blacklight Power, John Dash, Robert
>Bush, Mitchell Swartz.
>
>He did specify McKubre, Storms, Claytor, Iwamura at Mitsubishi, and
>Miles.  Are any of these currently running successful, even if rarely,
>excess power cells?  I notice none of these offer any research findings
>that might define a specific nuclear reaction.  I reposted my long,
>detailed critique of the Iwamura report, published in July, 1998 Fusion
>Technology, which I believe to be very feeble.  Rothwell criticized my
>critique, but no one has offered a detailed counter-critique.
>
>Rothwell refers to Dieter Britz's bibliography of  >1,000 peer-reviewed
>CF papers, but Britz himself, who probably has read this literature more
>than anyone over the years, to my knowledge is only convinced enough to
>state that more research is needed.  Do I have that right?
>
>I hope Jed will join me and Blue in closely critiquing Ed Storms' recent
>reports.


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:47:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA15161;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981105084400.00ab56d0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 08:44:00 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
In-Reply-To: <001c01be07ff$04716db0$4951ddcf craig>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1zwdi1.0.ji3.PKFGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24147
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Craige and all,

>I think I understand what you're saying; If the phase of
>the signal, over the width of the antenna is changing,
>with respect to time, then this almost certainly indicates
>a movement ACROSS the field of view.. Right? Therefore,
>because the phase of the observed signal was changing,
>there HAD to be tangental motion to the object emitting
>the signal.

No not necessarily.  If you think of those time lapse
photographs of the northern or southern sky, you notice
that all the stars sweep around one of the poles.  So if
a telescope on the ground is aimed at a particular spot
(say EQ Pegasi for example), then only EQ Pegasi stays
in the same place slowly turning, while all the other
objects (stars and satellites) slowly sweep around it.

If you look at this scene with a linear interferometer
which is only capable of finely resolving angular position
along one dimension, then the other objects displaced
from EQ Pegasi (stars and satellites) appear to sweep
back and forth with sinusoidal linear motion.  It is
this motion that Dr Norris was referring to when he said
that the phase turning was consistent with a source
several degrees away from EQ Pegasi.  It does NOT mean
that the source is actually moving with respect to
EQ Pegasi, but just that it is displaced from it and
therefore sweeps back and forth with the turning of the
earth.

>If this is true, then one should be able to use the
>change in phase to calculate the rate of change across
>the field of view,

Yes, if the phase information is not a constant
sinusoid, then it indicates that the source is moving
with respect to E_Peg.  If it moves away from E_Peg then
the amplitude of the phase sinusoid will be increasing
and vice-versa.  (This is contrary to what I thought
before - that it would add a constant phase shift rate
to the 24 hour sinusoidal variation).  I think there is
enough information in that phase plot together with the
other data to accurately determine where the source is
(or was) and in what direction and at what angular
velocity it was moving.

>..and subsequently to calculate the
>orbit of the device emitting the signal, if you assume
>the orbit is around the Earth.

Yes, I think so.

>Shouldn't you also be
>able to correlate this angular change with the observed
>shift in frequency over the duration of the observation?
>If so, then you could 'almost' PROVE it to be a
>satellite? Right?

Yes. (We have to assume that the frequency of the carrier
at transmission is constant of course).  Unfortunately
it doesn't seem that we have any information on the
frequency shift over the duration of the Australian
observation. One could work out the maximum shift from
the width of the line in the spectrum, but I think the
resolution is too poor to be useful.  We could ask for
more measurement data from Dr Norris!

>So our explanation for this signal, viewed by Paul Dore,
>the fellow in the Channel Isles, and the other fellow in
>Japan, is that it WASN'T one signal, but separate signals
>picked up by chance, near the same frequency, near the
>same location against the stellar background?

I would guess that this is mostly true - at least I think
they will not all be from the same source.  Maybe one of
the signals is anomalous in some way - in fact it would
have to be if the stuff about the NSA getting involved is
for real.

>If this is
>true, then it looks like amateur SETI is going to have a
>hell of a time trying to distinguish true signals from
>common signals. The signal must exhibit NO frequency
>change; exhibit NO phase change; and be consistently
>in one place for weeks before it can be taken seriously.

Not quite.  The frequency is allowed to change but is not
expected to change rapidly.  Phase change is only measurable
with a minimum of two telescopes widely spaced and operated
simultaneously as an interferometer.  This is a bit out of
reach of amateurs.

Also SETI expects the signals to come accurately from a star
system, not several degrees away.  And they mainly look at
sun-like stars that are rather close.  If you do the
calculation for the power that must be transmitted at the
remote star system to be detectable at earth, the value is
horrendous.

Also they use a second telescope for checking and I can't
remember quite how it is used (At Aricebo they used Jodrel
Bank, in Australia they used Parks and Mopra).  I would
guess though that this would overcome some of the problems
with satellites because if the telescopes are sufficiently
far apart then parallax will ensure that they don't both
have the same satellite at their centre of view.

>
>Thanks to everyone for the band-width. 

Yes thanks.  I admit it is a bit off topic but at least there
is a bit of interesting science involved which is more
than most of the discussions on this list!  And I have learnt
quite a bit about radio telescope arrays in the process.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 16:49:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA11893;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:46:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:46:19 -0800
Message-ID: <3640F5FB.4DA3 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:48:59 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: unsafe milk additives  11.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"N-QUD2.0.bv2.QLFGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24148
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 4, 1998
>Dear Friends:
>
>I attach the following for you as a reminder of our need to become a
>part of the healing of our eco-system.
>
>Below I share a brief but urgent message from our friends, the much
>abused animals, the cows:
>
>Bessie, our mother cow, used to provide her human family with 2000
>pounds of milk each year.  She weighs around 2000 pounds, and she gave
>all of this, all she has, in milk to us each year.  At that time she was seen as an important member of our family.  In the frozen days of
>winter, she was brought inside our homes at night.  She was fed first in the morning, before we ate our own breakfast.  (From the Zen teachings:
>Feed your animals before yourselves)
>
>Then we got greedy.  We decided to give Bessie hormones to make her more productive.  We took estrogen from a horse, and gave it to a cow, and then we drank the milk, as well as eating the beef. With the addition of
>the estrogen, Bessie was now forced to produce up to 25,000 pounds of
>milk per cow.  Very difficult for her to do.  In fact, she started to
>get ill and had udder and other infections.  To keep her going, we gave
>her multiple antibiotics.
>
>As if this horrid treatment weren't enough, Montsano marketed rBGH,
>recombinent bovine growth hormone, with the approval of the FDA, (see
>attached)  Now Bessie produces up to 75,000 pounds of milk per year.>
>Her udders are broken, her body broken, her spirit broken.  She cannot
>produce this large amount being an herbivore, we must feed her meat. 
>This meat comes from where?  It has been uncovered that we were feeding
>her the ground-up remains of dead cows, and other animals.
>The list of antibiotics given to Bessie has grown to 80 per day. 
>According to reports from tests conducted by the Wall Street Journal,
>only four of these are routeinly tested by the FDA.  Some of these are
>not intended for human consumption. Today residues of this artificial
>hormone, with others, and 80 different antibiotics, are found in our
>dairy and beef products.  These altered dairy and beef products  have
>been implicated in decreased sperm counts in human males.  They have
>also been implicated in both testicular and ovarian cancers.   Picture
>this:  When on our planet have human males or females ever received
>these forms  of estrogen IN UTERO and throughout their lifes?  And
>coming trans-species as well? 
>
>With our children consuming milk, pizza, and hamburg in abundance, and
>with milk products as ingredients in almost all boxed and canned goods,
>this is not an issue to put onto a back burner.
>
>Ben and Jerry's fought for the right to advertise on every carton of
>icecream they produce that they refuse to have milk in their products
>which contain rBGH. They won their suit, which was contested by
>Montsano, after a long battle. There is something afoot here which we
>had better look into.  (See attached)  
>
>Canada is now receiving pressure to push through their testing of rBGH
>and allow milk and beef products containing residues of this hormone
>into their country.  The panel of medical advisors who were both
>reviewing and conducting their own studies have been threatened with
>losing their jobs if they fail to pass rBGH as harmless.  They have come forward as a group and site many problems they have found in their
>tests.  Please see attached document.    
>
>An old saying goes:  "As you sow, so shall you reap."  We are sowing
>illness, pain, suffering and early death for our friends the cows, and
>we are reaping the same for ourselves and our families.
>
>Our choice:  Vote with your feet!!  Purchase safe and natural dairy
>products grown organically for you and your family.  More costly? 
>Perhaps, but how costly is the alternative?  The more we buy, the sooner the cost goes down. 
>
>Please read the attached, and write me if you want any copies of the
>many articles I have in my files this issue. 
>
>With my love, Emi

>>>=======================Electronic Edition========================
>>>.                                                               .
>>>.           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #621           .
>>>.                    ---October 22, 1998---                     .
>>>.                          HEADLINES:                           .
>>>.              MILK CONTROVERSY SPILLS INTO CANADA              .
>>>.                          ==========                           .
>>>.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
>>>.              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              .
>>>.          Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf rachel.org         .
>>>.                          ==========                           .
>>>.  Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send   .
>>>.      E-mail to INFO rachel.org with the single word HELP      .
>>>.    in the message; back issues also available via ftp from    .
>>>.    ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com     .
>>>.            and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/            .
>>>.    Subscriptions are free.  To subscribe, E-mail the words    .
>>>.   SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: listserv rachel.org.  .
>>>=================================================================
>>>
>>>MILK CONTROVERSY SPILLS INTO CANADA
>>>
>>>In late 1993, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave
>>>permission for Monsanto corporation to market rBGH, a
>>>genetically-engineered hormone that is injected into dairy cows
>>>to make them produce more milk.[1]  In 1990, FDA had declared
>>>rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), "safe for human
>>>consumption."[2]
>>>
>>>Now the scientific validity of FDA's 1993 safety decision is
>>>being challenged by Canadian government scientists.  Consumer's
>>>Union (publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine) and other U.S.
>>>consumer groups have called for a Congressional investigation
>>>into FDA's 1993 decision to approve rBGH.[3]
>>>
>>>Today tens of thousands of U.S. dairy cows are injected with rBGH
>>>each week, and virtually the entire U.S. citizenry is exposed to
>>>milk from rBGH-treated cows through milk, cream, cheese, yogurt,
>>>frozen yogurt, buttermilk, cream cheese, ice cream, iced milk,
>>>and baked goods.  No other country besides the U.S. has approved
>>>rBGH for use within its borders, though Monsanto has sought
>>>approval in Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and Canada.
>>>
>>>In 1990, in SCIENCE magazine, FDA published a justification for
>>>its conclusion that milk from rBGH-treated cows was "safe for
>>>human consumption."[2]  Such a public justification of a pending
>>>FDA decision is highly unusual, perhaps indicating the
>>>politically charged nature of FDA's decision to allow Monsanto to
>>>treat many of the nation's milk cows with a
>>>genetically-engineered hormone.
>>>
>>>FDA's 1990 SCIENCE article offered seven tables of data to
>>>support its conclusion that rBGH is safe.  The first two tables
>>>of data were taken from an unpublished Monsanto study of rats fed
>>>rBGH in high doses for 90 days.[4]  In SCIENCE, FDA said the
>>>90-day rat feeding study showed that rBGH "is not orally active
>>>in rats"[2,pg.875] and concluded that, "No oral activity was
>>>found when rBGH was administered to rats at exaggerated
>>>doses."[2,pg.883]
>>>
>>>However, a recently-released Canadian government report indicates
>>>that the findings of Monsanto's 90-day rat feeding study were
>>>misreported by FDA in SCIENCE in 1990.[5] The Canadian report
>>>says that 20% to 30% of the rats fed rBGH in high doses developed
>>>primary antibody responses to rBGH, indicating that rBGH was
>>>absorbed into their blood. An antibody response is evidence that
>>>the immune system has detected, and responded to, a substance
>>>entering the body. Furthermore, cysts reportedly developed on the
>>>thyroids of the male rats and some increased infiltration of the
>>>prostate gland occurred. Despite these results, FDA reported in
>>>SCIENCE that there were "no... clinical findings" in the Monsanto
>>>rat study.[2,pg.878] The Canadian government report concludes
>>>flatly that "the 3-month rat study did show a physiological
>>>response."[5,pg.29]
>>>
>>>One FDA official told the Associated Press this month that FDA
>>>never examined the raw data from Monsanto's rat feeding study but
>>>based its 1993 safety conclusion only on a summary of the study
>>>provided by Monsanto.  John Scheid, of FDA's Center for
>>>Veterinary Medicine, told AP reporter Frederick Bever, "We do not
>>>have the data from that study."[6]  Scheid said FDA had relied on
>>>a summary of the study provided by Monsanto.  For the past two
>>>days, FDA officials have refused to return phone calls from REHW
>>>seeking comment.  Drawing conclusions from a summary of a
>>>scientific study would be equivalent to describing the contents
>>>of a book by reading an author's summary of the book, instead of
>>>reading the book itself.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, relying on a summary of a study, rather than on
>>>detailed data from the study, would violate FDA's published
>>>procedures.  In its 1990 SCIENCE article, FDA said that "the FDA
>>>requires the pharmaceutical companies to submit all studies they
>>>conducted on their products" and said, "The companies also submit
>>>the raw data from all safety studies that will form the basis of
>>>the approval of the product;...."[2,pg.876]  Furthermore, FDA
>>>explained that, "If the initial toxicity study demonstrates that
>>>the protein [such as rBGH] is indeed orally active, additional
>>>testing may be required."[2,pg.876] Thus if FDA had known in 1990
>>>that Monsanto's rat feeding study had indicated that rBGH was
>>>orally active in rats, additional testing could have been
>>>required before a decision was made to approve or disapprove the
>>>genetically-engineered drug.
>>>
>>>Monsanto's application to market rBGH in Canada has reportedly
>>>created political pressures on government scientists there to
>>>sidestep normal safety protocols.
>>>
>>>** Canadian government scientists say that the Canadian government
>>>has failed to require follow-up studies that seem to be called
>>>for by the findings of the Monsanto rat-feeding study.  In their
>>>report released earlier this month, they say, "The usually
>>>required long-term toxicology studies to ascertain human safety
>>>were not conducted. Hence, such possibilities and potential as
>>>sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer, and immunological
>>>derangements were not addressed."[6]
>>>
>>>** The scientists who wrote the report testified before an inquiry
>>>board earlier this month that they have been pressured by
>>>higher-ups to alter the content of their report, which has now
>>>been published on the internet at www.nfu.ca/nfu/Gapsreport.html.
>>>
>>>The purpose of the Canadian report was to identify data gaps, and
>>>procedural gaps, in the handling of Monsanto's application to
>>>market rBGH in Canada.
>>>
>>>** Two of the report's authors, and four other Canadian government
>>>scientists, testified that they have been threatened with
>>>transfers to other jobs where "they would never be heard of
>>>again" if they did not speed up approval of Monsanto's rBGH
>>>product in Canada, despite the absence of long-term data showing
>>>the product is safe for humans. Monsanto's application to market
>>>rBGH in Canada has been pending since 1990.  According to the
>>>TORONTO STAR, "The scientists contend managers in Health Canada
>>>[the Canadian equivalent of FDA] are more concerned about
>>>pleasing the companies that submit the drug applications and are
>>>paying for their approval than they are about protecting
>>>health."[7] The Canadian scientists have been forbidden to speak
>>>to the press about their concerns, but they testified last month
>>>before a government board of inquiry.
>>>
>>>** The same rat-feeding study that has raised such controversy in
>>>the U.S. has also proven controversial in Canada.  A Canadian
>>>legislator, Mira Spivak, whose committee is investigating the
>>>approval process for rBGH in Canada, says Canadian health
>>>officials provided her staff with a copy of the Monsanto study in
>>>which the information about the potentially troubling effects of
>>>rBGH on rats was "blocked out."[8]
>>>
>>>** The Canadian government report, which is critical of the rBGH
>>>review process in both Canada and the U.S., will be sent on to a
>>>panel of experts (six members from the Royal College of
>>>Physicians and Surgeons and six from the Canadian Veterinary
>>>Medical Association) for a "completely objective and arm's length
>>>review."  However, the TORONTO STAR has reported that one of the
>>>physicians reviewing the report, Rejeanne Gougeon, served as a
>>>consultant to Monsanto from 1993 until May, 1998.  In 1994
>>>Gougeon published a paper recommending that the Canadian
>>>government approve rBGH.  The paper was supported with a grant
>>>from a lobbying group that Monsanto helps finance, the STAR said.
>>>Gougeon told the STAR that she had never promoted rBGH, but that
>>>in the past Monsanto had paid her to give talks to consumers
>>>about genetic engineering "in a friendly context."[9]
>>>
>>>** The Canadian government report (pg. 26) says that levels of
>>>IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor-1) are elevated in the milk
>>>produced by rBGH-treated cows.  IGF-I is identical in cows and in
>>>humans and, as the name implies, it promotes growth.  The
>>>Canadian report notes that U.S. FDA acknowledges that IGF-I is
>>>increased in milk from rBGH-treated cows.  The Canadian report
>>>concludes, "There is insufficient information [about IGF-I] to
>>>provide a quantitative risk assessment; therefore, many potential
>>>health concerns remain unresolved."
>>>
>>>** The Canadian government report offered additional data which,
>>>if corroborated, could have prevented U.S. FDA from approving
>>>rBGH for injection into cows.  FDA says that, before a drug can
>>>be approved for use in animals, "the company must show that the
>>>drug is effective and safe for the animal."[2,pg.875]  The
>>>Canadian government report (pg. 29) says, "Evidence from the
>>>animal safety reviews were [sic] not taken into consideration.
>>>These studies indicated numerous adverse effects in cows,
>>>including birth defects, reproductive disorders, higher incidence
>>>of mastitis [infection leading to inflammation of the udder],
>>>which may have had an impact on human health."   Furthermore, the
>>>Canadian government report says (pg. 14), "There are reports on
>>>file that Monsanto pursued aggressive marketing tactics,
>>>compensated farmers whose veterinary bills escalated due to
>>>increased side effects associated with the use of rBST [rBGH],
>>>and covered up negative trial results.  All the four U.S.
>>>manufacturers [Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Cyanamid and Elanco, with
>>>only Monsanto actually marketing a product] refused to disclose
>>>the lists of their research grants to U.S. universities."
>>>Without such lists, one could not inquire what effects (if any)
>>>had been revealed by animal experiments.
>>>
>>>The Canadian government report concludes (pg. 5) that, in Canada,
>>>"Both procedural and data gaps were found which fail to properly
>>>address the human safety requirements of this drug under the Food
>>>and Drugs Act and Regulations."  It is evident from the Canadian
>>>report that the U.S. approval process for this drug was equally
>>>flawed.  None of the questions raised by the Canadian government
>>>scientists have been addressed by U.S. FDA.
>>>                                                --Peter Montague
>>>                (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
>>>
>>>===============
>>>[1] See REHW #381, #382, #383, #384, #454, #483, #593, #598.
>>>
>>>[2] Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, "Bovine growth
>>>Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation," SCIENCE Vol. 249 (August
>>>24, 1990), pgs. 875-884.
>>>
>>>[3] Consumer Policy Institute, "Statement of Michael Hansen... on
>>>Canadian rBST (rBGH) 'Gaps Analysis' Report and FDA Inaction
>>>October 5, 1998" (Yonkers, N.Y.: Consumer Policy Institute
>>>[phone: (914) 378-2455], October 5, 1998.  And see:
>>>Correspondence from Anthony Pollina, Vermont Public Interest
>>>Research Group [phone (802) 223-5221], and Ellen Taggert, Rural
>>>Vermont [phone: (802) 223-7222], to Senator James Jeffords,
>>>Senator Patrick Leahy, and Representative Bernie Sanders, dated
>>>October 1, 1998.
>>>
>>>[4] The complete Monsanto rat feeding study has never been
>>>officially released, published, or, so far as we know, subjected
>>>to peer review. FDA has vigorously resisted all efforts by
>>>citizens, under the federal Freedom of Information Act, to obtain
>>>a copy of the complete study including the raw data.  For the
>>>story of one citizens's attempts to obtain a copy of the study,
>>>see Robert Cohen, MILK THE DEADLY POISON (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
>>>Argus Publishing, 1997), pgs. 77-96. ISBN 0-9659196-0-9.  FDA has
>>>successfully argued in federal court that release of the Monsanto
>>>study "would cause substantial competitive and financial harm to
>>>the company."  If John Scheid of FDA is right, FDA could not
>>>release the study because, Scheid says, FDA has never
>>>possessed a complete copy of the study.
>>>
>>>[5] Shiv Chopra and others, RBST (NUTRILAC) "GAPS ANALYSIS"
>>>REPORT BY RBST INTERNAL REVIEW TEAM, HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH,
>>>HEALTH CANADA (Ottawa: Health Canada, April 21, 1998). Health
>>>Canada is the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug
>>>Administration. This report was recently made available on the
>>>world wide web at: www.nfu.ca/nfu/Gapsreport.html. [The Canadian
>>>government report is available from us for $5.00; write to
>>>Rachel's, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403.]  To avoid using the
>>>word "hormone" to describe rBGH, Monsanto renamed the drug
>>>recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST. In the U.S., Monsanto
>>>sells rBGH (or rBST) under the trade name Posilac; in Canada,
>>>they are seeking approval to sell it under the trade name
>>>Nutrilac.
>>>
>>>[6] Frederick Bever [Associated Press], "Canadian Agency
>>>Questions Approval of Cow Drug by U.S.," RUTLAND [VERMONT] HERALD
>>>October 6, 1998, pg. unknown.
>>>
>>>[7] Laura Eggertson, "Researchers threatened, inquiry told,"
>>>TORONTO STAR September 17, 1998, pg. unknown.
>>>
>>>[8] Anne McIlroy, "Health Canada cover-up alleged," [TORONTO]
>>>GLOBE AND MAIL September 17, 1998, pg. A3.
>>>
>>>[9] Laura Eggertson, "Expert worked for drug firm," TORONTO STAR
>>>September 21, 1998, pg. A2.
>>>
>>>Descriptor terms:  milk; food safety; rbgh; rbst; monsanto;
>>>canada; genetic engineering; consumer's union; michael hansen;
>>>cattle; cows; agriculture; dairy farming; fda; whistle blowers;
>>>
>>>################################################################
>>>                             NOTICE
>>>Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
>>>version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
>>>even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
>>>to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
>>>free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
>>>(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
>>>your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
>>>Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
>>>not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
>>>information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
>>>by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
>>>(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
>>>                                        --Peter Montague, Editor
>>>################################################################

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 17:08:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23997;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:04:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:04:48 -0800
Message-ID: <3640FAAE.2D98 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:09:02 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 11.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q6wnB2.0.hs5.mcFGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24149
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.2.98
  Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:51:50 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Well, Scott, I thing we have wrung this for all it's worth.
You are going to go on insisting that there is a quantum
coherence for this system that I insist has no connection
to reality.  I am not interested in your theory because
it does not connect to anything real.

For example, you write Bloch wave functions for the
separation coordinate of a bound system.  I don't know
how you can do that.  Clearly you have not shown those
wave functions to be eigenfunctions of the actual
physical system under consideration.  The binding
energy forces a functional form at great distance from
the well to be the familiar exponential decay -- not
a Bloch function.

You insist that the periodic potential arises from the
"self interaction" but I point out that there are other,
stronger interactions that must be considered once you
get as far from r=0 as one unit cell spacing.  The fact
that you assume something about those other interactions
does not make it the right thing to do.

We also keep running into your concept that there is
some grand symmetry requirement that constrains the
interactions to your chosen set.  I don't recognize any
such requirements as having bearing on the question.
Most real wavefunctions involve sufficient mixing of
states that symmetries are seldom as pure as you assume.
Of course, if you make all sorts of idealizations you
can preserve whatever you want, but so what?

To make a Born-Oppenheimer separation and then use that
as a justification for keeping other interactions out
of the problem is, I would say, very circular reasoning.
Nature does not preserve the conditions that allow you
to make certain assumptions.  If your assumptions break
down, that's your problem.

Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
justify saying that everything has to remain in its
ground state because it's at T=0.  Unless you have
some infinite heat sink hidden in the lattice there is
nothing to keep it at T=0 if there is an energy source
present.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 17:19:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31459;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:47 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b266ace18d8f [208.228.222.129]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:25:01 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Resent-Message-ID: <"bmP0y1.0.Th7.spFGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24150
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:44 AM 11/5/98, John Winterflood wrote:
[snip]
>
>>
>>Thanks to everyone for the band-width.
>
>Yes thanks.  I admit it is a bit off topic but at least there
>is a bit of interesting science involved which is more
>than most of the discussions on this list!


It wasn't always this way.  Maybe someone will figure out a way to fix things.


>And I have learnt
>quite a bit about radio telescope arrays in the process.


Personally, I much appreciate your efforts and am learning from you.  It
would be good to have a list to which to take this discussion.  I hate to
see the basic character of vortex ruined with UFO and other pop stuff.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 17:41:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA07106;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:36:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:36:59 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105014330.00e5f290 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:43:30 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"wIygf2.0.yk1.w4GGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24151
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

I guess you really aren't interested in finding the answer. So if this can't
be answered either way, I'll stop bugging you guys.


Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer. Is this the proper
definition of dissociation energy?


>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 17:54:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15687;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:53:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:53:39 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105020030.00e5eeb4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:00:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"sbdU_1.0.zq3.ZKGGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24152
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

What is this?

http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/suncru.htm

Dennis


At 03:02 PM 11/4/98 -0900, you wrote:

>>***{Hi, Hamdi. Well, this issue is obviously not going away, so despite my
>>earlier decision to shut up about it, there is clearly no point. With
>>everybody screaming at the same time, the MIB's aren't likely to even
>>notice my two cents worth.
>
>Like it would really bother you and your dozens of pit bulls.  It will take
>more than two MIB to vist *you* I'll bet.   8^)
>
>BTW, most of the telescopes (about 500?) of the current SETI project are
>amateur owned and operated.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          
>
>
>
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 18:34:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23695;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981104212242.009d12a0 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:22:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
In-Reply-To: <3640E27B.8AE2EA7C css.mot.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xNTxH1.0.9o5.xuGGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24153
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John, I am naturally curious-- why does it have to be 40 feet tall? 
Why not just build the smaller [proof-of-principle] prototype?

...Or have you already worn that T-shirt?

Colin Quinney


At 05:25 PM 11/04/98 -0600, John E. Steck wrote:
>Vorts-
>
>Is there any information or websites on research grants for individuals that
>anyone might recommend to someone without a Ph.D. or university
association?  I
>have a structure designed that I want to try and build.  Loosely
described, is a
>passive gravity/vortex/resonance experiment (natural rotationally induced EMF
>resonance coupling and accumulation).  It is a big, geometric, magnetic grade
>stainless steel construct (approx. 40 ft tall) that just may also qualify
as an
>art sculpture (I already have plans to court the art world folks).  Even
if the
>idea fails, would look nice in a park, university, or corporate landscape
>somewhere.  At this point any funding options are welcome.  Also, I am
looking
>for a place to put it.  Any suggestions are welcome, public or private.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 18:55:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA03194;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:53:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:53:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199811050252.UAA24822 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:51:20 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Resent-Message-ID: <"H18VY.0.mn.KCHGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24154
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 8:44 AM 11/5/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>Thanks to everyone for the band-width.
>>
>>Yes thanks.  I admit it is a bit off topic but at least there
>>is a bit of interesting science involved which is more
>>than most of the discussions on this list!
>
>
>It wasn't always this way.

***{Yes it was. The fact is, most of the posts in every group are just
fluff: idle chit-chat, jokes, or out-of-focus speculations. Posts that
employ careful reasoning or calculations do not draw much in the way of
responses, whereas those which are full of fluff draw many responses. John
is an exception, and is to be congratulated for his tendency to focus on
content, despite occasional lapses. (E.g., when he called me a paranoid.
:-) --Mitchell Jones}***

    Maybe someone will figure out a way to fix things.

***{How? That's just the way most people are, Horace. They prefer to talk
about fluff, because it makes them feel safe. When they interact with
individuals who are focused on reasoning and science, there is always a
danger that they will make a misstatement and be pounced on, and so they
tend to avoid such interactions. What do you propose: mandatory brain
transplants for fluff addicts? :-)

The reason so many people behave this way, of course, is that they were
abused as children in the public schools, where they were repeatedly
grilled by "teachers" about useless, pointless "facts" which they had
failed to memorize, and publicly humiliated when they couldn't come up with
the "right" answers. The resulting psychological scars inhibit their
ability to learn in the present, by causing them to shy away from learning
situations and from individuals who are committed to learning. They did not
deserve to be abused as children, of course, and their resulting
inhibitions about learning are a tragic waste of their talents, but this is
not a state of affairs which you can change. My advice is to just accept
people as they are, and be glad that there are a few on the list who are
willing to interact with you at the level which you prefer.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>>And I have learnt
>>quite a bit about radio telescope arrays in the process.
>
>
>Personally, I much appreciate your efforts and am learning from you.  It
>would be good to have a list to which to take this discussion.  I hate to
>see the basic character of vortex ruined with UFO and other pop stuff.

***{Now you are becoming confused, Horace. John's posts may have focused on
reason and science, but his subject has been SETI--the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence--a UFO related topic if ever there was one.
What you need to recognize is that any topic involving anomalous scientific
results, including UFO's, can be dealt with from a reasoned, scientific
perspective. As for the posts of the fluffmeisters, well, as I said above,
there isn't much you can do about them. It's just the way most people are,
and they will be that way in any group you flee to. You need to simply
accept that and, if it really bothers you that much, get yourself a good
set of e-mail filters and start screening out the posts of the individuals
that you object to. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 19:57:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA21799;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:55:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:55:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811050355.VAA25761 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:54:06 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"iSsBO3.0.WK5.77IGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24155
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Hi;
>
>What is this?
>
>http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/suncru.htm
>
>Dennis
>

***{When I checked out your URL, Dennis, I found myself looking at a
picture of the sun. And seemingly not too far from the sun--though the
perspective is hard to judge in an astronomical photo--I saw what appeared
to be some sort of gigantic spaceship. My first reaction was that I was
looking at a doctored photo, or some sort of computer simulation of the
sort that they do when they make Startrek episodes. But as I read the
associated material, two things became apparent: (1) the site administrator
is putting this forward very seriously as an actual SOHO photo, and (2) a
number of e-mail correspondents to the site, including an astronomer whom I
respect (Tom van Flandern), treat this as a true image, and merely try to
explain what they see by postulating that it is the image of a comet, or
Mars, or Saturn, etc. In keeping with that spirit, I began to think about
the possibility that I was looking at an actual, undoctored photo. After
looking at the thing for a moment, it occurred to me that the position of
EQ Pegasi on Oct. 22 would put it not too far from the position of the sun.
(My wife and I were discussing that at a restaurant just last night, as it
happens.) At that point, the hair stood up on the back of my neck! Bottom
line: everyone who has been interested in the discussion of Paul Dore's
alleged SETI hit should check out this site immediately, before these
photos and discussions are replaced by the NSA logo! When you do so, it
will become crystal clear why our government might try to suppress  such
information! --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 20:42:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA01114;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:38:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:38:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981104223913.00984320 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:39:13 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981105014330.00e5f290 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"a4S-n.0.KH.PlIGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24156
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:43 PM 11/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer.

OK, brace yourself....

>Is this the proper
>definition of dissociation energy?

>>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>>
>>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
>between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
>their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."

The answer is: It depends upon what you mean by "dissociation energy"

That quantity they describe is referred to as the "spectroscopic
dissociation energy" because of the way in which it is determined (by
measuring a molecules' vibrational energy levels spectroscopically) but it
is NOT the energy required to actually dissociate a real molecule.  The
real dissociation energy is a smaller quantity because the atoms in real
molecules are never "at rest at the equilibrium separation".  There is
always a residual energy which keeps them vibrating.  This residual is
called the ground state energy.

For H2 molecules, De is about 109.5 kcal/mole whereas the real dissociation
energy, Do, is only 103.16 kcal/mole.

You can clearly see the difference between these two quantities on the
graph I sent you.




Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 20:43:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02462;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:41:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:41:56 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981105124352.00837c20 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:43:52 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: EQ Pegasi all a hoax!
In-Reply-To: <199811050355.VAA25761 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"UGg6I2.0.Nc.KoIGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24157
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Checkout the latest report :

http://www.seti-inst.edu/eqpeg.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 21:22:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA11059;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:19:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:19:50 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105052642.00e1c088 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, 05 Nov 1998 00:26:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"KOwwu1.0.fi2.sLJGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24158
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 10:39 PM 11/4/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 08:43 PM 11/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>
>>Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer.
>
>OK, brace yourself....
>
>>Is this the proper
>>definition of dissociation energy?
>
>>>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>>>
>>>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
>>between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
>>their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."
>
>The answer is: It depends upon what you mean by "dissociation energy"
>
>That quantity they describe is referred to as the "spectroscopic
>dissociation energy" because of the way in which it is determined (by
>measuring a molecules' vibrational energy levels spectroscopically) but it
>is NOT the energy required to actually dissociate a real molecule.

So what is this spectroscopic dissociation energy? What other kind of
dissociation is there that this value represents? Can you show me a
reference that defines dissociation energy as you say here?

>The
>real dissociation energy is a smaller quantity because the atoms in real
>molecules are never "at rest at the equilibrium separation".  There is
>always a residual energy which keeps them vibrating.  This residual is
>called the ground state energy.
>
>For H2 molecules, De is about 109.5 kcal/mole whereas the real dissociation
>energy, Do, is only 103.16 kcal/mole.
>
>You can clearly see the difference between these two quantities on the
>graph I sent you.

Are you just trying to confuse the issue?

Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 21:59:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20255;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:57:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:57:24 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105060414.00e5e87c 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, 05 Nov 1998 01:04:14 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Icecap pictures
Resent-Message-ID: <"PYeA1.0.Py4.3vJGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24159
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/ant.htm


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 23:28:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA12282;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:24:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:24:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981105012455.00972a30 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:24:55 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981105052642.00e1c088 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lXv0c3.0.q_2.pALGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24160
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:26 AM 11/5/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>So what is this spectroscopic dissociation energy?

It is the full depth of the potential well.  If molecules didn't have
ground state energy it would BE the dissociation energy.  Since all
molecules possess ground state energy, it is always MORE than the amount of
energy needed to dissoc the molecule.  

>What other kind of
>dissociation is there that this value represents?

None.  It is a value of theoretical interest only.

>Can you show me a
>reference that defines dissociation energy as you say here?

Yes.  The graph I sent you, which clearly shows the difference, came from
"Physical Chemistry" by Moore.  Most physical chemistry books have similar
graphs...some have detailed text descriptions of the difference.  Contact
me off-forum if you want more references.

>Are you just trying to confuse the issue?

Surely, you are joking!


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov  4 23:58:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA17883;
	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:57:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:57:39 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105080400.00e67918 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, 05 Nov 1998 03:04:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"hWK8C2.0.AN4.ofLGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24161
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:24 AM 11/5/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>Can you show me a
>>reference that defines dissociation energy as you say here?
>
>Yes.  The graph I sent you, which clearly shows the difference, came from
>"Physical Chemistry" by Moore.

No graphs please, I meant a definition in words of dissociation energy.


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 00:04:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA19492;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:01:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:01:12 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26706696c39 [208.228.222.129]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:07:27 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hvp2b3.0.Qm4.8jLGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24162
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 9:51 PM 11/4/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>>It wasn't always this way.
>
>***{Yes it was.
[snip]

Check the archives.

>
>    Maybe someone will figure out a way to fix things.
>
>***{How?
[snip]

By agreeing to limit topics.


>>Personally, I much appreciate your efforts and am learning from you.  It
>>would be good to have a list to which to take this discussion.  I hate to
>>see the basic character of vortex ruined with UFO and other pop stuff.
>
>***{Now you are becoming confused, Horace. John's posts may have focused on
>reason and science, but his subject has been SETI--the search for
>extraterrestrial intelligence--a UFO related topic if ever there was one.


I am not confused one iota.  SETI and UFO material are nearly inseparable
as far as I am concerned.  I practically said there was a possibility of a
UFO indicated by the data.  I have a genuine interest in SETI.  I made a
conscious decision to go ahead and have some fun.  Might as well, since
almost no one seems to have any interest in doing anything about the
technical dilution happening on vortex-L.  My "lab" is now down for a while
due to household problems so I thought this was a good way to kill a bit of
time.  I just think UFO's, SETI, and various other topics of late belong
elsewhere.  I guess I am alone in that.  I suggested discussion of this but
got barely a comment.

Want to talk about the anomalous aura of witches and goblins?  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 00:13:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA23947;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:12:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:12:35 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105081947.00e66848 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, 05 Nov 1998 03:19:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Resent-Message-ID: <"SnKN9.0.1s5.otLGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24163
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi

At 11:07 PM 11/4/98 -0900, you wrote:
> Might as well, since
>almost no one seems to have any interest in doing anything about the
>technical dilution happening on vortex-L.

Verbal definition of dissociation energy? Do you have something different?

>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 08:42:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA10745;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:38:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:38:44 -0800
From: "R. Wormus" <protech frii.com>
Reply-To: rwormus lock-load.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:35:28 -0600
Message-ID: <yam7613.1402.137060968 mail.frii.com>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b266a0218eb1 [208.228.222.129]>
X-Mailer: YAM 2.0 Preview5 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck - http://www.yam.ch
Organization: LOCK+LOAD <R. Wormus>
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"qVTVQ2.0.kd2.JITGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24164
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace and list,
As a basic  lurker here I appriciate the varity of  subjects that come
up and the links that are provided.  I can then follow up or delete
posts as I choose.  I would never have the time to track most of this
stuff down on my own.  I found the SETI discussion stimulating in spite
of its improabability.

I don't read Rich's Dick Blue stuff any more because I already know how
Dick thinks, but I don't mind hitting the delete key so that you have
these posts available to pour over as you desire.

It seems to me that you need to lighten up a bit and ignore the stuff
that bothers you.  Why do you feel that you should have anymore say in
what's posted here than someone else?  If you feel a subject is BS just
delete it and refrain from commenting. Or if that is too much trouble
set up some Email filters. It's easy!!

Ron


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 09:22:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24363;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:21:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:21:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3641E6D7.5016 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:56:39 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: EQ Pegasi SETI hoax]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZvL6j3.0.by5.1wTGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24165
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Message-ID: <3641E03D.1ED8 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:28:29 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l- eskimo.com
Subject: EQ Pegasi SETI hoax
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Vo

It appears that Rick Monteverde, and others posting here were correct,
this is/was a hoax. Thanks to Rick, John Winterflood and everyone who
participated with their analyses of this and updates. 

I hope that this episode will not deter serious research and discussion
of the topic of SETI and possible interstellar communication modes on
this forum. From the charter , it is apparent that Vortex has evolved
over time to accomodate more than one topic of general scientific 
interest at a time, which I think is good. 

I can appreciate the interest in other topics, such as CF, and I have no
problems with the bandwidth devoted to that subject here. If and when
someone produces a truly repeatable experiment exhibiting OU effect, I
will follow the thread with enthusiasm. I have yet to see such but who
knows, it could happen.

By this same token , I hope others not particulrly interested in SETI
will not start clamoring for censorship, intervention by the listerver
owner, or taking discussion of such off-list as we have during  this
rather short lived episode. If nothing else , in less than one week the
combination of talent participating here has unraveled the many hours of
effort that the hoaxter(s) must have put into this. I find it somewhat
annoying that some people  begrudge us the relatively small amount of
time and disk space that was required to do this. 

This was fun and we should all be a little wiser for the experience , if
nothing else.
I know I am. 

Thanks to all who helped.

Jim Ostrowski




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 09:36:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27886;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:30:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:30:30 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3641E0A9.6DB3DC16 css.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:30:18 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Research Grants?
References: <3.0.5.32.19981104212242.009d12a0 inforamp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ooh3p.0.dp6.s2UGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24166
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Quinney wrote:
> John, I am naturally curious-- why does it have to be 40 feet tall?
> Why not just build the smaller [proof-of-principle] prototype?

I will be building a 1:8 scale model to help sell the project, but as this is a
passive accumulator, scale is needed IMO to amplify the anticipated effect. 
This size isn't just a stab in the dark, but unfortunately most every premise
for my calculations are fringe theoretical.  Without hard data to support them,
they can hardly be taken serious just yet.  I am hoping to fill in some of the
grey areas with this experiment.  The current structure stands 35' 8 5/8".   

Screen dumps:
<http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/PGA/discussion-110598.html>

Images are 'work in progress' and are somewhat incomplete right now.  I am
posting them just to save me typing out a description.  Feedback is always
welcome, public or private.  I am setting up a more formal site right now to
help market the project.  I will post the URL when it is ready for prime time.

Later.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 09:50:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03273;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:46:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:46:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105174634.008f31cc 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: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:46:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
Resent-Message-ID: <"BXMyv1.0.2p.5IUGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24167
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:54 PM 11/4/98 -0600, Mitchel Jones wrote:
>>Hi;
>>
>>What is this?
>>
>>http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/suncru.htm
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>
>associated material, two things became apparent: (1) the site administrator
>is putting this forward very seriously as an actual SOHO photo, and (2) a
>number of e-mail correspondents to the site, including an astronomer whom I
>respect (Tom van Flandern), treat this as a true image, and merely try to
>explain what they see by postulating that it is the image of a comet, or
>Mars, or Saturn, etc. 
>information! --Mitchell Jones}***
>
The image of interest is always in a horizontal position as viewed on the
film.  To me this strongly suggests that a reflection of the sun in some
pathway to the film in the camera is being recorded.  Its position in the
film is a function of the position of the SOHO camera at the time of exosure.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 11:43:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07929;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:25:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:25:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981105142303.00a8e590 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:23:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
In-Reply-To: <3641E0A9.6DB3DC16 css.mot.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981104212242.009d12a0 inforamp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8xDoX3.0.lx1.RkVGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24168
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If a picture is worth a thousand words, it is definitely a work of art. 
It looks like 5 interwoven compound offset giant crystaline-type structures.
It looks like a fun thing to build. Maybe we will all chip in a few bucks
and assist..
I hope you can do it. And send us some time-lapse pictures of the
construction.

Interesting..

Regards,
Colin

At 11:30 AM 11/05/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>Quinney wrote:
>> John, I am naturally curious-- why does it have to be 40 feet tall?
>> Why not just build the smaller [proof-of-principle] prototype?
>
>I will be building a 1:8 scale model to help sell the project, but as this
is a
>passive accumulator, scale is needed IMO to amplify the anticipated effect. 
>This size isn't just a stab in the dark, but unfortunately most every premise
>for my calculations are fringe theoretical.  Without hard data to support
them,
>they can hardly be taken serious just yet.  I am hoping to fill in some of
the
>grey areas with this experiment.  The current structure stands 35' 8 5/8".   
>
>Screen dumps:
><http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/PGA/discussion-110598.html>
>
>Images are 'work in progress' and are somewhat incomplete right now.  I am
>posting them just to save me typing out a description.  Feedback is always
>welcome, public or private.  I am setting up a more formal site right now to
>help market the project.  I will post the URL when it is ready for prime
time.
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 12:17:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29121;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:15:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:15:23 -0800
Message-ID: <3642078B.73BD interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 15:16:11 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
References: <3.0.5.32.19981104212242.009d12a0 inforamp.net> <3641E0A9.6DB3DC16@css.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"31LEh1.0.o67.OTWGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24169
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:
> 
 The current structure stands 35' 8 5/8".
> 
> Screen dumps:
> <http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/PGA/discussion-110598.html>
> 
 I will post the URL when it is ready for prime time.
> 

Dog gone, John - this is what I like to see! - a project that's so
pretty that it doesn't need to "work" to justify it!!
Thanks for the picture and keep us informed.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 13:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21715;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:14:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:14:52 -0800
Message-ID: <36422334.27F3206B gold.globalcafe.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 22:14:17 +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: Re:research grants
References: <3642AF9D.FDBA7AA4 gold.globalcafe.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-Uqre1.0.DJ5.CLXGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24170
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Arts funding for science/art projects:

try the following foundations Gulbenkian, Getty, Soros, Well-come

Science and arts or technological arts is becoming very fashionable but you might have to tie up with some arties with good CVs.

Whoever said it is correct, you will have to make a small model first usually but I think there is some mileage in the idea.

ja


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 13:18:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22186;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:15:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:15:32 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:15:29 -0800
Message-Id: <199811052115.NAA08977 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 suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"_COpX1.0.aQ5.qLXGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24171
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer. Is this the proper
>definition of dissociation energy?
>
>
>>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>>
>>
>>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>>
>>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
>between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
>their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."

I don't understand what you do not understand about this.  Yes, the comment
is well said.  If you have a rock at the bottom of a valley, and you carry
it up the side of the mountain, then it has some amount of potential energy
which you could release by rolling it back down the mountain again to drive
some motor.

Likewise, two atoms have an amount of energy that can be released if they
are allowed to combine.  The reverse is that it will take that amount of
energy to disociate them, and so we name the energy by that term since most
of the molecules we would experiment begin as molecules, not free atoms.

>From an aether model point of view, the difference between the two is that
the molecule has associated with it, a smaller amount of aether than do the
two independent atoms.  So, during recombination, some aether is shot out
into the surrounding universe, and that accelerates the molecule, and other
molecules nearby sort of like a balloon that you blow up, and let it go
without tying off the end.

All exothermic reactions are aether emissive.  And they all, thus, push the
rest of the universe away from the region of exothermy.  

The molecular effect is puny.  If you want evidence of the principle, then
go study what happens when a new born star first ignites, or when it ignites
it's fusion of helium during it's second birth. (ie, t-tauri star and Herbig
Haro objects, or for helium flash ignition, see FLIERs and planetary nebula
at the 


Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 13:28:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26071;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:25:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:25:20 -0800
Message-ID: <364217D9.1C66CD45 ariel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 16:25:45 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
References: <199811052115.NAA08977 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"N65Lb.0.7N6.-UXGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24172
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
>
> The molecular effect is puny.  If you want evidence of the principle, then
> go study what happens when a new born star first ignites, or when it ignites
> it's fusion of helium during it's second birth. (ie, t-tauri star and Herbig
> Haro objects, or for helium flash ignition, see FLIERs and planetary nebula
> at the
> 
> Ross Tessien

Look everyone!  The NSA cut off the end of his post!!!  Ross, looks like
you're on to something!


Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 14:22:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14966;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:19:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:19:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981105171959.01cb9100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:19:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: EQ Pegassi page new apperance
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981105174634.008f31cc freeway.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VJJoE.0.lf3.qHYGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24173
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:46 PM 11/5/98 -0500, Edwin Strojny wrote:
>The image of interest is always in a horizontal position as viewed on the
>film.  To me this strongly suggests that a reflection of the sun in some
>pathway to the film in the camera is being recorded.  Its position in the
>film is a function of the position of the SOHO camera at the time of exosure.
 
   Actually it looks to me like an artifact of the compression software, given
a too brilliant small object.  A planet could be bright enough to do that, but
think for a minute.  It may be that ice is redirecting light back at the
sun, it does that read about the gegenshein, and so the planet appears much
brighter than expected.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 14:41:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23692;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:37:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:37:52 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105224436.00e36ee8 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, 05 Nov 1998 17:44:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
Cc: John_Steck css.mot.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"PLLNG1.0.2o5._YYGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24174
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John;

Innovative use of the Bucky Fuller Tetrahelix? Very interesting. I like the
rendering a lot. What is the amount of the grant that you project will be
needed to build it? I'm trying to get our evil landlord to fund the Piano
Factory Art Foundation in return for violating government developer
obligations. I would classify your sculpture as an example of Objective Art
form. This is exactly what I'd like to encourage with Art Foundation grants.
I think the Passive Geometric Accumulator is great work.


Best Regards;
Dennis



At 11:30 AM 11/5/98 -0600, you wrote:

>I will be building a 1:8 scale model to help sell the project, but as this is a
>passive accumulator, scale is needed IMO to amplify the anticipated effect. 
>This size isn't just a stab in the dark, but unfortunately most every premise
>for my calculations are fringe theoretical.  Without hard data to support them,
>they can hardly be taken serious just yet.  I am hoping to fill in some of the
>grey areas with this experiment.  The current structure stands 35' 8 5/8".   
>
>Screen dumps:
><http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/PGA/discussion-110598.html>
>
>Images are 'work in progress' and are somewhat incomplete right now.  I am
>posting them just to save me typing out a description.  Feedback is always
>welcome, public or private.  I am setting up a more formal site right now to
>help market the project.  I will post the URL when it is ready for prime time.


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 14:42:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24755;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:41:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:41:32 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <3641E0AB.3D89E8C4 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:30:19 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
References: <199811041354.FAA09663 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PypcU2.0.j26.RcYGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24175
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> 
> I am close to cancelling my subscription due to the lack of scientific
> discussion, as banter isn't of interest to me. 

Hi Ross,

You never did answer my question on red shift.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 15:12:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03800;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:10:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:10:58 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981105231748.00e75a64 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, 05 Nov 1998 18:17:48 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Dissociation Energy Value
Resent-Message-ID: <"_45lW.0.Ix.12ZGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24176
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

What would the dissociation energy of hydrogen calculate to be if we used
the definition below?

>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>
>
>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>
>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 16:09:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA25518;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:45 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199811060007.QAA02211 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: Dissociation Energy Value
Resent-Message-ID: <"rQyPc2.0.dE6.GtZGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24177
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Dennis,

Go to a local UC or other bookstore.  Order the recent CRC in Physics and
Chemistry.  Look up all the answers you want and many more to boot.  No one
interested in any sort of physics should be missing that resource on the
shelf at home.  And if you have it, then just look it up.  I do, but you
need to go get it for yourself.

Go to a library if you don't want to pay any money.

Honest, you should really get that book for thousands of questions like that
which you will pose over the balance of your lifetime.  I have hundreds of
books on the shelf, but that one is opened more than any other individual book.

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 16:13:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28397;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:12:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:12:32 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:12:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199811060012.QAA02908 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: Red Shift was  Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"r69WH1.0.Rx6.kxZGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24178
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Ross Tessien wrote:
>> 
>> I am close to cancelling my subscription due to the lack of scientific
>> discussion, as banter isn't of interest to me. 
>
>Hi Ross,
>
>You never did answer my question on red shift.
>
>Jack Smith

Sorry.  My policy is to in general, avoid adding to the dumb discussions.  I
never intended for my comments to become threads, and haven't been reading
them.  If you repeat the question, under the heading of Red Shift, I will
respond.  Go ahead and delete the BS...... part of the thread.

I delete about 95 percent of vortex stuff because it is just banter without
scientific discourse.  But I check out new threads that have interesting
titles.  SETI stuff was interesting for the first couple of posts, for
example.  But not after the whole thing turned into the possibility that it
might be a hoax.  At that point, no definitive info is there, so it ought to
be dropped, at least it was by me.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 16:41:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA08028;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:40:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:40:04 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b267ebee16c6 [208.228.222.23]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:46:19 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qs7YB1.0.Mz1.ZLaGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24179
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:35 AM 11/5/98, R. Wormus wrote:
>Horace and list,
[snip]
>  Why do you feel that you should have anymore say in
>what's posted here than someone else?

I suggested comment and/or a vote on topics.  I am not trying to have more
say, nor am I the only one to complain about the situation.  The existence
of this list has just recently had national exposure.  Though there has
always been a great deal of wonderful tolerance of off topic material,  it
feels to me the  more serious character of the list for the last several
years is now changing or evolving into a "pop" type list.  Not only does it
feel less serious, but also less cooperative and mutually supportive.  It
seems to be leaning towards the more argumentative nature of
sci.physics.fusion, but with far far less restrictive subject matter.  It
bothers me that many newcomers to the list may see this and assume this is
the nature of the list. If this happens there will eventually be hundreds
of mindless posts a day, the signal will be completely lost in the noise.
We are already in danger of losing or have lost a number of long term
subscribers and contributors, like Dieter Britz (once again) for example.

Perhaps I am only distressing myself with imaginings?  It would make me sad
to see this list go the way of some of the pop UFO, psychic, health remidy,
pseudo-science type lists.  I have donated dozens of ideas and hundreds of
hours of time calculating, looking up references and answering questions
here. Many other long term members have made similar and much more valuable
and professional contributions, people like Scott Little.  I have spent
many many hours reading Ross Tessien's posts, so wonder at how many hours
it must have taken him to actually *write* them!  There are many people who
have much more invested in this list than the $10 per year donation.  I
thought maybe some of the long term contributors felt similarly that the
fundamental nature of the list in which we have invested so much was in
jeopardy.  I suppose I may be way premature in my feelings.  I also suppose
I should feel some guilt at having so readily jumped into too many off
topic conversations in a "chat" kind of mode. I can see that I am part of
the problem so will attempt some self restraint.  I did really enjoy the
technical discussion of the Dore object/hoax though.  8^)


>If you feel a subject is BS just
>delete it and refrain from commenting. Or if that is too much trouble
>set up some Email filters. It's easy!!
>
>Ron

We will soon see just how easy it is to find the signal amongst the noise.
I will now stop commenting on this as I have had my full say.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 17:04:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18921;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:02:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:02:21 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b267fb1fa874 [208.228.222.23]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:08:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
Resent-Message-ID: <"xO_e32.0.Ld4.SgaGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24180
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:30 AM 11/5/98, John Steck wrote:
[snip]
>Screen dumps:
><http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/PGA/discussion-110598.html>

Wow John!  Nice looking project.

I suspect your best chance for grant money or info about such might be
through your State government or State chamber of commerce.  You might call
your State Ombudsman's office, if there be such in your state, or
Department of Commerce, and ask where to go looking for funds.  They
probably have a web site and email too.

Best of luck with your project. Looks cool.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 17:56:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08267;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:54:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:54:56 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811060154.RAA05462 schilling.ucdavis.edu>
X-Sender: szdanq blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"LIjHC1.0.-02.kRbGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24181
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I don't have good standing to comment on this topic, because I haven't
contributed anything remotely technical since the SMOT business. But since
nobody else seems to be jumping in to do so, I'd like to add my voice in
support of what Horace has posted.

This is not a chat room. It is here for *technical* discussion. I have an
opinion on everything under the sun, but I don't spew it out to this list.
And when something off-topic does come up here, I try very hard to resist
responding to the list - if I do respond it is done _privately_.

Horace's latest post about says it all, so I won't belabor the point too
much. And the point, I think, is this:
*if you don't have anything pertinent to say, don't say anything!*

Most politics, sociology, conspiracy, and quasi-technical untestable ideas
based solely on _belief_ do not qualify (to me) as pertinent.

Now don't give us that business about using filters, or hitting the delete
button. That's just a diversion from the point. If a lot of subscribers are
having to filter/delete the majority of posts, then there's something wrong.
Of course we can separate the wheat from the chaff if we have to. But one of
the strong points of this list is(was) that we do(did) not _have_ to search
through a hundred messages to find rational discussion...

Dan Quickert


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 18:21:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17577;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:15:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:15:24 -0800
Message-ID: <001601be092a$df996100$b18f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:12:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"5ydus3.0.VI4.ykbGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24182
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room

Well said, Dan.

If I recall correctly, the Chat Rooms have "doors" to exclude obnoxious or
irrelevant
input.

Regards,   Frederick

Dan Quickert wrote:


>I don't have good standing to comment on this topic, because I haven't
>contributed anything remotely technical since the SMOT business. But since
>nobody else seems to be jumping in to do so, I'd like to add my voice in
>support of what Horace has posted.
>
>This is not a chat room. It is here for *technical* discussion. I have an
>opinion on everything under the sun, but I don't spew it out to this list.
>And when something off-topic does come up here, I try very hard to resist
>responding to the list - if I do respond it is done _privately_.
>
>Horace's latest post about says it all, so I won't belabor the point too
>much. And the point, I think, is this:
>*if you don't have anything pertinent to say, don't say anything!*
>
>Most politics, sociology, conspiracy, and quasi-technical untestable ideas
>based solely on _belief_ do not qualify (to me) as pertinent.
>
>Now don't give us that business about using filters, or hitting the delete
>button. That's just a diversion from the point. If a lot of subscribers are
>having to filter/delete the majority of posts, then there's something
wrong.
>Of course we can separate the wheat from the chaff if we have to. But one
of
>the strong points of this list is(was) that we do(did) not _have_ to search
>through a hundred messages to find rational discussion...
>
>Dan Quickert
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 18:25:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA19680;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:22:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:22:08 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:17:36 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: NOT random!
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811052120_MC2-5F43-4C41 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"BhVWq2.0.Qp4.FrbGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24183
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; >INTERNET:britz kemi.aau.dk

Dieter Britz writes:

     It is no use saying that there have been other important fields where
     initially, there were problems with reproducibility. Until an effect can
     be reproduced at will, it is uncertain. In those other areas
     (transistors, surface catalysis, etc), this was achieved. Random
     successes are not proof, no matter how many there are, as long as they
     are overwhelmed by nonsuccesses. We are free to

This is wrong. The top quark costs billions to reproduce, it takes trillions
and trillions of attempts, and only one group in the entire world is capable
of doing it, yet nobody claims those trillions of "nonsuccess" collisions
overwhelm the few collisions that produced a top quark. Incandescent lights
were nearly impossible to reproduce for 20 years yet nobody claimed they did
not exist.

FURTHERMORE, as I told Britz four times previously, this NOT -- repeat NOT --
random. The CF effect is correlated with well-defined material conditions,
which only occur in rare materials. A random effect would not yield this
correlation in the life of the universe. The term "random" is supposed to mean
something, yet Britz acts as if it is magic incantation. He thinks you wave
you hand and say "random" five times on Internet, and the results vanish.
Either Britz does not understand what "random" means or he ignoring the
literature, because the experiments demonstrate iron-clad, indisputable
causality between cathode conditions and the excess heat. This rules out
random errors and calorimeter errors, unless you can show how the cathode
affects the calorimeter. This is the *first thing* that strikes you in the
literature. It has been stated explicitly countless times. Every major author
has pointed it out and published data proving the correlation. It is blatantly
obvious! Inescapable! I cannot understand how someone who has supposedly read
these papers could overlook it.

This is a gross error. It is appalling to me that a trained scientist would
look at this data and claim it is random. You could confidently bet a million
to one against this correlation from random causes. Consider an imaginary
situation analogous to the ~100 tests performed by Miles. Suppose we made 100
palladium coins and hyperloaded 10 of them with hydrogen. Imagine we drop
them. The 90 untreated coins come up heads, and the other 10 come up tails.
Would that be a random event? Would it happen with ordinary coins, where 10
are marked with ink, let us say? No! Absolutely not -- not even if we repeated
the experiment every hour for a billion years. The other day Dick Blue claimed
that Pons and Fleischmann made one measurement where in fact they made
millions of repeated measurements. This reflects gross ignorance of the
literature and a lack of common sense. Britz's statement reflects equally
gross ignorance of basic science, statistics and causality.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 18:49:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA27301;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:46:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:46:47 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:44:48 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Will visit Pope next week
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811052146_MC2-5F40-BFEF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"UFNCn.0.Qg6.NCcGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24184
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

First let me say that I agree emphatically with Horace Heffner and Dan
Quickert. This forum is for science and technical comments, not politics. I
too have any number of opinions about other subjects, but there are million
other Internet forums devoted to these subjects so please take the discussion
ELSEWHERE. Yes, I have been guilty of an occasionally serendipitous joke,
summaries of books I am reading, history and so on. I wish that people would
act as if this was an informal physics symposium. Humor and science mix well
in moderation. Jean-Paul Biberian gives marvelous lectures mixed with
light-hearted humor. Jokes during the coffee breaks help keep people awake,
but <ahem> Let's Call This Meeting To Order, please.

Anyway, getting back to real work, I will be visiting Ralph Pope next week.
Our initial tests with his machine are described on the web page,
www.infinite-energy.com. We had a frustrating time with his machine, as you
will read in the next issue of the magazine. We were not able to reproduce
excess heat in our lab. Tragically, the original inventor of the device,
Eugene Perkins, died recently after years of ill-health. We are regrouping for
another round of tests. Ed Wall sent me marching orders for next week (a list
of test procedures), which I will edit and post here for comments tomorrow.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 19:18:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA02935;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:16:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:16:43 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <36422126.3CC9C2F1 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 22:05:26 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Red Shift
References: <199811041354.FAA09663 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WiEgP3.0.ij.RecGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24185
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Ross wrote:

So, that binary would gravitate according to;

         F = G(M)(2M/3)/R^2  = 2GM^2/3R^2

All this does is to change the orbital periods,
ie, circular velocities of objects orbiting a star.  

Hi Ross and Terren,

That was an interesting post.  Wouldn't the red
shift of light from the binary reaching the objects
also change?

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 19:53:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15050;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:44:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:44:54 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:44:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811060344.TAA02160 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Vortex = BS chat room
Resent-Message-ID: <"lXlTJ1.0.4h3.s2dGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24186
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Please, NO ONE RESPOND TO THIS:

I made my comment, and I shut up to drop it and hope that everyone would
take the point, and quite bantering about this BS.  Instead, my post turned
into yet one more long thread of post, counter post of BS, precisely what I
was trying to reduce.

Please, Dont respond to this post any longer.  We all know the value, and
the negative attributes to vortex.  But sending 30+ email messages a day
such as the one below, and all of the numerous follow ups to my simple plea
to reduce the amount of bantor is ridiculous.

I am only responding because everyone is saying they aren't just babbling.
But in so doing, YOU ARE.

Just drop it, please.

Don't respond to me, I'm not reading them.  And I'd prefer if you wouldn't
go on between yourselves.  Start on some meat and potatoes instead.



Ross Tessien

>This is not a chat room. It is here for *technical* discussion. I have an
>opinion on everything under the sun, but I don't spew it out to this list.
>And when something off-topic does come up here, I try very hard to resist
>responding to the list - if I do respond it is done _privately_.
>
>Horace's latest post about says it all, so I won't belabor the point too
>much. And the point, I think, is this:
>*if you don't have anything pertinent to say, don't say anything!*
>





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 20:50:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA00420;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:45:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:45:27 -0800
Message-ID: <003001be093f$d2f4c9c0$b18f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogenation/ Deuteration of Multi-Charged Ions
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:42:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"G8uUy.0.T6.cxdGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24187
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For your contemplation Robin,if the Flak hasn't
got you.  :-)

The "interesting" O/U-Hydrogen metals Ni, Ti, Fe, Al, Cu, and Pd,in their 2+
(II,or more) ionization states, which generally are the way that their
compounds prefer,NiO,FeO,Al(NO3)3
Pd(NO3)2 etc. have the II ionization energy
greater than the dissociation and ionization energy of H2 or D2:

   Al       Ti      Ni     Fe     Cu     Pd
II    III   II      II     II     II     II

18.3  28.5  13.6   18.2    16.2   20.3   19.4

Note that if the sum of I and II is greater than 27.2 ev, or the sum of I II
III is greater than 54.4 ev, things also get interesting.

The easiest way to get Pd ++ or Al +++ ions is to dissolve the metal in HNO3
or DNO3.

Then I think pressurizing the aqueous solution
with H2 or D2 gas might get interesting (if the
H2 or D2 doesn't start reacting with the NO3-
ions) through dissociation and charge exchange:

M++ + D2 ---> MD+ + D+  etc.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 21:09:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA06337;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:07:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:07:26 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106051429.00e7918c 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, 06 Nov 1998 00:14:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"pGwop1.0.sY1.EGeGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24188
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:15 PM 11/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>>Here is a key issue noboby seems to be able to answer. Is this the proper
>>definition of dissociation energy?
>>
>>
>>>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>>>
>>>
>>>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>>>
>>>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
>>between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
>>their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."
>
>I don't understand what you do not understand about this.  Yes, the comment
>is well said.  If you have a rock at the bottom of a valley, and you carry
>it up the side of the mountain, then it has some amount of potential energy
>which you could release by rolling it back down the mountain again to drive
>some motor.

So this energy separates the two atoms and all the energy is stored in the
two atoms? Then when the atoms combine the stored energy is released again?
Conservation of energy, no energy transfer from the environment?

There is the idea that the separation energy, De, is actually quite small.
When the atoms separate, each atom expands spherically and absorbs most of
the 109kcal./gram mole from the ZPE. When the atoms recombine, the atoms
spherically contract on bonding and releases the ZPE acquired energy as heat.

>>From an aether model point of view, the difference between the two is that
>the molecule has associated with it, a smaller amount of aether than do the
>two independent atoms.  So, during recombination, some aether is shot out
>into the surrounding universe, and that accelerates the molecule, and other
>molecules nearby sort of like a balloon that you blow up, and let it go
>without tying off the end.

The expansion and contraction of the atom is spherically symmetrical.

>All exothermic reactions are aether emissive.  And they all, thus, push the
>rest of the universe away from the region of exothermy.  
>
>The molecular effect is puny.

Do you mean the ZPE spherical pumping effect? I wonder if there is a way of
measuring how much ZPE is involved here. The radius of atomic hydrogen as
opposed to diatomic hydrogen is probably known. When an hydrogen atom
changes by the difference of these two radiuses, how much of a ZPE transfer
is it thereby caused to occur? Do we have the math to do this?


Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 21:11:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07336;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:10:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:10:32 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106051733.00e2ba90 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, 06 Nov 1998 00:17:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Dissociation Energy Value
Resent-Message-ID: <"tl0an2.0.Yo1.8JeGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24189
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 04:07 PM 11/5/98 -0800, you wrote:

>Go to a local UC or other bookstore.  Order the recent CRC in Physics and
>Chemistry.  Look up all the answers you want and many more to boot.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been wanting to get more reference books.
I'll look into this.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 21:54:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20316;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:46:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:46:32 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106055328.00e62670 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, 06 Nov 1998 00:53:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Will visit Pope next week
Resent-Message-ID: <"649kr3.0.Mz4.uqeGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24190
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 09:44 PM 11/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I
>too have any number of opinions about other subjects, but there are million
>other Internet forums devoted to these subjects so please take the discussion
>ELSEWHERE.

I guess this could mean me. I felt that these forums involve higher
dimensional energy effects and reasons to direct research in a certain
direction was in the spirit of things. However, I have resigned to the
reality that we are going to just keep our fingers crossed for this coming
planetary alignment.

>Anyway, getting back to real work, I will be visiting Ralph Pope next week.
>Our initial tests with his machine are described on the web page,
>www.infinite-energy.com. We had a frustrating time with his machine, as you
>will read in the next issue of the magazine. We were not able to reproduce
>excess heat in our lab.

There is mention that the right kind of water is required. Schauberger
theory might have useful ideas about this matter. Jerry Decker posted an
account of atomizing water under high pressure and letting the spray drop
for a distance. This charges the water to higher potential. It maybe a
similar requirement for a high charge water to be used in the device you are
testing.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 22:06:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA24186;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:58:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:58:12 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106060524.00e31bf8 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, 06 Nov 1998 01:05:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: NOT random!
Resent-Message-ID: <"3qkiA3.0.qv5.q_eGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24191
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:17 PM 11/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>To: Vortex; >INTERNET:britz kemi.aau.dk

The term "random" is supposed to mean
>something, yet Britz acts as if it is magic incantation. He thinks you wave
>you hand and say "random" five times on Internet, and the results vanish.
>Either Britz does not understand what "random" means or he ignoring the
>literature, because the experiments demonstrate iron-clad, indisputable
>causality between cathode conditions and the excess heat.

Random could also imply not using enough dimensions in the analysis.
Environmental conditions that are not accepted by mainstream science as
contributing factors could make results appear random. I might consider
geometry node effects, water charge condition, geographical electromagnetic
and time variations, and maybe even the people in the room at the time
(Margins of Reality - Jahn and Dunne).

Mainstream scientists could not risk be seen considering such factors so it
will in likelyhood always seem random to them.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 23:16:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA10644;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:15:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:15:09 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:12:39 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811060214_MC2-5F3C-AE65 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"tthQ51.0.Ec2.z7gGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24193
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace,

>> Personally, I much appreciate your efforts and am learning from you.  It
would be good to have a list to which to take this discussion.  I hate to
see the basic character of vortex ruined with UFO and other pop stuff. <<

I agree completely, however, as long as there is something of reasonable
interest to exercise the grey cells to fill in the gaps between 'real'
Vortex input, it is still worth staying with it.

I'm still waiting for the testing of the Griggs splasher to be completed by
the  IE boys, along with all the other 'just-about-to-happen' ou thingies.

Regards,  Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 23:34:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA09086;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:12:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:12:10 -0800
Message-Id: <199811060711.BAA22651 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:10:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: SETI Institute "Refutation" of "Paul Dore's" Alleged SETI Hit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA09063
Resent-Message-ID: <"_J8PA.0.qD2.A5gGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24192
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{Since some of you appear to have bought into the hoax theory, I have
decided to amuse myself by dissecting the SETI institute's supposed "proof"
that this is all a hoax. Their report, with my annotations, is given below,
after the line of asterisks. (The original version of their report, without
my annotations, may be found at http://www.seti-inst.edu/eqpeg.html.) Since
the names of some of the principals in this affair are in dispute, I have
tried to place quotation marks around all of them, and no sarcasm is
intended by that usage. To assist the conformists among you in following my
presentation, I would ask that you simply pretend, while you are reading my
analysis, that the authorities can't be trusted. (I know that  is utterly
inconceivable to you, but please humor me.) Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

********************************************************
EQ Peg: A Detection?

                   Many visitors to this site may be aware of the claims of
an amateur astronomer in Great Britain, Paul Dore, to have found an
extraterrestrial signal in the direction of the star system EQ Pegasi.
While some attention has been paid to this claim by the (mostly British)
media, there is every indication that the claim is either an unrecognized
detection of terrestrial interference or a deliberate prank. There is even
evidence that the postings are, in fact, not the work of the real Paul Dore
(see below).

                   The star system in question, a pair of M-type dwarfs
approximately 21 light-years distant, was the subject of observations by
Project Phoenix at Arecibo in September. My report of this observation (and
a similar report written by me and published by MSNBC) noted that an
interesting candidate signal was found while Jill Tarter and I were
observing EQ Peg at 1210 MHz, but that within ten minutes we had detected
the signal in the "off" position, proving that it was terrestrial
interference. The write-up was intended to give readers a feel for what
it's like to be at the telescope, and how we deal with the occasional
interesting candidate. Note that during the September run we continued to
observe EQ Peg at other frequencies between approximately 1,200 and 3,000
MHz without finding any signal. Note also that the Arecibo telescope, with
its large collecting area and low-noise amplifiers, is many thousands of
times more sensitive than the equipment used by Mr. Dore.

***{"Many thousands of times" is an exaggeration: the Arecibo dish has a
diameter of 305 meters, while the dish used by "Paul Dore" was claimed to
have a diameter of 10 meters. Thus their collecting area, and hence their
sensitivity, is roughly 930 times as great as his. Note also that this
improvement in sensitivity comes at the cost of decreased beam width. At
the 21 cm wavelength, the 305 meter dish at Arecibo has a beam width of
roughly B = 4000(21/30500) = 2.75 arcmin = .046 degrees. On the other hand,
at 21 cm "Paul Dore's" 10 meter dish has a beam width of roughly B =
4000(21/1000) = 84 arcmin = 1.4 degrees. That means his beam is about 31
times as wide as theirs, and, consequently, it means that when he reported
a SETI hit at the EQ Peg coordinates, his signal could have been coming
from anywhere within a .7 degree radius of EQ Peg. Thus to perform a
meaningful verification attempt, the Arecibo radiotelescope would have had
to carefully track its beam throughout that entire area, rather than merely
point at the EQ Peg coordinates and see if they got a signal. After all,
when the Aecibo telescope is pointed at the EQ Peg coordinates, they can
only detect signals that originate within .023 degrees of that location,
not the required .7 degrees! --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Why do SETI astronomers disbelieve the claimed detection?

                   To begin with, the claim was made anonymously, and by
breaking into a closed Internet group run by theSETI League. Anonymous
claims of major scientific discoveries are always suspect. Imagine if
someone calls you announcing the discovery of a cure for cancer - a result
of some importance - but refuses to divulge either his name or how he might
be contacted. How much credence should one give such claims?

***{That depends on the specifics of the situation. If the claim is one
that might subject the claimant to public ridicule, as here, then anonymity
might be well advised. Similarly, if one  makes  a discovery while making
unauthorized use of one's employer's equipment, as here, then anonymity
might be desirable. Finally, if the authorities cannot be trusted and want
to cover up the information, as here, then caution might be well advised.
--Mitchell Jones}***

                   Second, the direction of the signal, EQ Peg, is highly
coincidental to put it mildly. Of all the sky where such a signal might
originate, it seems remarkable that the claimed detection should be at the
coordinates where Project Phoenix had found interference and described it
on the Web. This either bespeaks an extremely improbable coincidence or a
lack of imagination.

***{The implied premise of the above is that when the almighty "Project
Phoenix" declares a signal to be "interference," then by damn this what it
must be! However, if one considers the possibility that members of the
almighty "Project Phoenix" may have made a gigantic mistake, then it is
hardly coincidental that "Paul Dore" found his SETI hit at the same
location! Thus there are two possibilities here: (1) Project Phoenix was
right to declare that the EQ Peg signal was due to interference, in which
case it appears highly coincidental and improbable that "Paul Dore's"
claimed SETI hit at the same location is valid. (2) Project Phoenix was
wrong to declare that the EQ Peg signal was due to interference, in which
case "Paul Dore's" SETI hit at that location is not a coincidence, and it
is highly probable that his hit is valid. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Third, the original scans posted anonymously by Mr. Dore
did not have the characteristics of an on-off observation, as they were
claimed to be. When this was pointed out, new scans were posted.

***{A plausible explanation for the error was also posted--to wit: that in
his excitement he posted the same scan twice. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Fourth, attempts to confirm the detection by several
members of the SETI League failed to turn up the signal. This despite the
fact that the signal-to-noise claimed for this emission was a whopping ten
thousand.

***{Yup. It was a powerful signal, one that did not require a highly
sensitive radiotelescope to detect. Hence the use of a large radiotelescope
to detect it was disadvantageous: such telescopes  would be forced to
laboriously track their narrow beams throughout the entire area covered by
"Paul Dore's" small, wide beam instrument, in order to make a serious
effort to verify his findings. --Mitchell Jones}***

On November 2, Dr. Ray Norris used the Australia Telescope Compact Array
and the Mopra telescope (also in Australia) to observe EQ Peg. These
telescopes consist of antenna elements 22 m in diameter. Norris failed to
find the claimed signal with both instruments, despite having thirty times
the sensitivity of Mr. Dore. A similar effort, conducted by Dr. John
Whiteoak, using the Australian 22 m Mopra radio telescope also failed to
find the signal, as did drift scans made using the Planetary Society's
Project BETA telescope in Massachusetts. None of the professional efforts
made to find this reputed signal have confirmed its existence.

***{And all of them, according to their own published reports, simply
pointed their narrow beam instruments at the EQ Peg coordinates and checked
for a signal. *None of them did the laborious search through "Paul Dore's"
beam area which would have been required, if they had been serious in their
efforts to find the alleged transmissions.* Hence their claims that the
signal wasn't there are utterly worthless. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Fifth, the spectral plots posted on the Web for October
22 and October 23 by Mr. Dore were identical, except for a vertical shift
of a few dozen pixels! When this was pointed out, the amateur astronomer
claimed that he had, in haste, mistakenly posted the same spectrum twice.
However, how does this account for the shift of the data within the plot?
Were the manipulations necessary to accomplish this shift also a mistake?
According to those who had access to the original postings, the reason
offered by Mr. Dore for this strange duplication of plots changed with
time.

***{This is an elaboration on the objection stated earlier. Here the
attempt is made to disprove "Paul Dore's" claim that he had simply made an
error. The argument is that the duplicated scans were, after all, not quite
the same. The idea is that some sort of hanky panky must have been going on
to account for the pixel shift in the otherwise identical scans. I would
respond that this is an absurd premise. Not knowing the instruments that
were used, many innocent explanations are possible. For example, "Paul
Dore" may have been using an analog  display which lacked a digital output,
and may have used a scope camera to capture the scan. How, then, would he
digitize the photo? Simple: he would lay it face down on a flatbed color
scanner, and scan it into his computer. And if, perchance, he adjusted the
picture a bit and scanned it in again, the result could be two digitized
photos of the same image, that differed by merely a pixel. Once those two
images were in his system, it would be a simple matter to inadvertently
send the same image twice, yet have the second image be one pixel off from
the first. And, of course, there are a hundred other ways this could have
happened, none of which imply dishonesty on "Paul Dore's" part. --Mitchell
Jones}***

                   Sixth, the subsequent confirmation detections claimed by
amateur astronomers in Guernsey and in Japan find the signal at different
frequencies.

***{Yes, and they also noted that the frequency of the carrier transmission
shifted while they were in the act of monitoring it. In a 19 minute period,
for example, "Jay Oka" reported that the signal shifted by 200 Hz.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Remember: the microwave bands are cluttered with terrestrial interference,
and finding signals in these bands is no trick. While observing at Arecibo,
we typically had dozens of strong interference signals in every 20 MHz
chunk of the microwave spectrum.

***{Utterly irrelevant. "Paul Dore" explicitly reported repeatedly moving
his beam away from the coordinates, and each time he did so, the signal
went away. Moreover, since "K.F. Benton" on Guernsey and "Jay Oka" in Tokyo
both read "Paul Dore's" explanation of what he had done before attempting
to replicate his finding, it is virtually a certainty that they performed
this test also, before reporting that they had also found his signal.
--Mitchell Jones}***

                   Seventh, although Mr. Dore has apparently said that he
has confirmation observations of his signal from the Effelsberg 100 m radio
telescope in Germany, this does not appear to be true.

***{"Paul Dore" did not name the observatory where the replication had been
made. He merely noted that it was not Jodrell Bank. The Efflesberg
inference was drawn by a reporter in a wire story that came later.
--Mitchell Jones}***

An e-mail from Dr. Rolf Schwartz, of the Max Planck Institute for Radio
Astronomy, states that "the circulated message that the 100 m telescope of
the Institute is involved in observations to confirm a SETI signal is
WRONG!!!! The Institute is not involved in any SETI projects� and is not
invited to the [press] conference in London."

***{The explanation mark is sometimes referred to as "the mark of
ignorance." Given the fact that "Paul Dore" never identified the
observatory where the replication had occurred, and the use of *four*
(count  em) exclamation marks in the above, that observation appears to be
on target. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Eighth, note that Mr. Dore has claimed that the press
conference alluded to in Dr. Schwartz's message would be held on Wednesday,
4 November. [Apparently someone was offering transportation, as he  stated
that a mysterious black sedan was parked near his house and another was
following him to work. However, the posted photos of the two sedans were
both the same, and parked on the wrong side of the road for Britain.]

***{The initial photos were the same, but it is absurd to suppose that this
was anything other than an error made by the website manager--which is
what, in fact, he explicitly claimed that it was, when he corrected the
error by posting the second picture. As for the cars being on the wrong
side of the road, that is absurd: the cars were parked by the side of the
road, not driving in traffic. If, as "Paul Dore" claimed, the cars were
following him in his daily activities, and staking him out wherever he
stopped, is it not obvious that they would park at locations which would
give them a good observational position, regardless of which side of the
road that  might be? --Mitchell Jones}***

                   On November 3rd, the press conference was abruptly
canceled. Mr. Dore states that the reason for this was that he had a visit
from national security agents informing him that he had discovered a
"classified intelligence satellite." Note that detecting satellites,
whether secret or not, is easy: anyone with an antenna can do so. It is the
encrypted information such satellites send back to Earth that is of
importance, not the carrier signal that Mr. Dore now claims was what he
detected. This story, like all previous ones, hardly makes sense.

***{The implied assumption here is that the authorities wouldn't lie and
that their tale of a classified military deep space probe is correct. But
let's suppose, for a moment, that they would lie, and that what they told
"Paul Dore" is merely a cover story designed to mask the real truth.

Suppose, for example, that a gigantic starship is parked very close to our
sun, that it just happened to be near the EQ Peg coordinates on Oct. 22,
and that "Paul Dore" stumbled on a carrier wave coming from it at the 21 cm
wavelength. Note the eerie plausibility of this choice of wavelength: the
sun is a major source of RF noise on a vast number of bands, but is
relatively clear on 21 cm because hydrogen ions in the solar atmosphere
absorb at  that  frequency. Thus  if you were on a gigantic starship, and
you were near the sun, and you wanted to communicate with confederates on
Earth via radio, what  frequency would you choose? Would you, perhaps, use
21 cm? [To see the SOHO photographs of this apparent starship, check out
http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/suncru.htm while you still can.]

Going further, suppose that the authorities on Earth don't want us peons to
know about the existence of ET's. There is precedence for this in history.
For example, when westerners were exploring Africa and South America in the
19th century, there were many instances where the tribal authorities
attempted to prevent their people from finding out about the existence of
westerners, and there was great animosity toward westerners by the ruling
classes. A shaman, for example, is used to uttering his mumbo-jumbo and
getting great respect from his fellow tribesmen, due to his arcane
"knowledge." But  his credibility instantly crashes when westerners arrive
with their superior technology. They display technological "magic" that
obviously works (the rifle, or "thunder stick," which kills from afar; the
camera, which captures a person's image; and on and on). The "magic" of the
shaman, on the other hand, is obviously of a lesser sort. And the same is
true of the chiefs and their minions, who are used to living the easy life
in return for "protecting" the people from various dangers, real or
imagined. The whole game goes crashing to the ground as soon as the people
realize that the outsiders have superior knowledge, because at that point
the chiefs and the witch doctors lose their credibility. A similar example
occured in Japan, where the shoguns kept their people in ignorance of the
west for as long as they could, until finally Commodore Perry sailed a
squadron of "black ships" into Tokyo Bay in 1853, and rendered the policy
of seclusion impossible to maintain. And a more recent example, of course,
is the former Soviet Union, which fell apart not very long after the
development of the internet rendered it impossible for the authorities to
maintain their cover-up of the economic superiority of the West. Is it not
possible that the parasitic elites which are now riding on our backs, in
every nation on this earth, fear the loss of credibility which they will
suffer if the existence of ET's, with their superior technological "magic,"
is acknowledged?

If we open our minds to that possibility, then we are free to interpret
what the men in black said to "Paul Dore" as a disinformation cover
story--a lie intended to mask the existence of ET's--and the SETI
institute's claim that it "hardly makes sense" ceases to undercut "Paul
Dore's" story, and begins to support it instead!

Bottom line: if you seriously consider the possibility that the authorities
are lying, the hoax theory quickly begins to come apart at the seams.

--Mitchell Jones}***

                   Ninth, also on November 3rd, an anonymous hacker claimed
to have "broken into the SETI Institute's computer" and retrieved spectra
showing a signal from the direction of EQ Peg. No such break-in occurred,
and in fact the stored data are not even on the machines cited. Indeed, the
posted signals are clearly faked. They have been concocted by cutting and
pasting plots of test signals that have been on our site for many months.
You might wish to compare a blow-up of the graphic on our site with the
claimed "break-in" data plot for EQ Peg. What started as an announcement of
potentially great scientific importance has degenerated into puerile
pranksterism.

                    The top graphic is taken from our Web site and shows a
test signal. The lower is part of the spectrum supposedly stolen from our
computers and purported to be data for EQ Peg. You can see that the lower
graphic has been fabricated from the upper by cutting and pasting two
numbers taken from the original. Readers with sharp eyes or the ability to
enlarge graphics will also note that the pasted "2" has a one pixel
vertical shift. The other data plot posted by the hoaxers is similarly an
edited version of another graphic from our site.

***{The story about the anonymous hacker has nothing to do with "Paul
Dore", since "Paul Dore" did not make those claims, and never commented on
them. (It is even possible that the anonymous hacker was an NSA black ops
guy on a mission of disinformation.) In any case, this is an irrelevant red
herring, and I am not going to chase it. --Mitchell Jones}***

                    Tenth, on November 4th, all the postings of data and
descriptions of the claimed detection on the GeoCities sites were removed,
and replaced by a National Security Agency emblem.

***{Yup. And if you are willing to distrust the authorities, the most
plausible interpretation is obvious: "Paul Dore's" post revealing the visit
by the men in black, and their threats and intimidation, might be an
attempt on his part to save face without violating the letter of the
instructions he had been given by the three men. If so, then it obviously
would have had the effect of infuriating them. Result: the same three black
ops goons would have paid him a second visit after he posted the message
talking about their first visit, and would have let him know in no
uncertain terms that his life was toast if he did not thereafter deny all
knowledge of the affair. They could very well have threatened to kill his
entire family if he continued to resist. Next, by this theory, the men in
black would go to the guy who was posting the SETI hit info on the
geocities website and tell him essentially the same thing they told "Paul
Dore"--e.g.: "Stop posting this stuff, or we will come down on you hard."
Result: he too complied with the letter of their instructions, but posted
the NSA logo on his web pages, to suggest why he had pulled the story, for
those who were astute enough to take the hint. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Both Dr. Paul Shuch and Michael Theroux say that they have been in e-mail
contact with a Mr. Dore in Britain, who states that he has had nothing to
do with any of the above events, and hadn't even heard about them until
they were pointed out to him. He claims that his personal Web site was
"ripped off" to construct a false identity. He also maintains that he no
longer works for the engineering firm so widely advertised as his place of
employment. He is not an amateur astronomer. The Mr. Dore of this story
appears to be a fabrication of the hoaxer.

***{Distrust of the authorities brings to mind the possibility that "Paul
Dore" is saying what he is saying now under duress. As for the fact that he
no longer  works for Siemens Plessey Systems, the earlier incarnation of
"Paul Dore" never claimed to do so. That was an inference drawn by others,
very much like the inference that the confirmation had come from
Efflesberg. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   In summary, there is no reason to believe that a true,
extraterrestrial signal has yet been detected.

***{Yes there is. We have claimed SETI hits by three amateurs: "Paul Dore",
"K.F. Benton", and "Jay Oka", all at the same coordinates and basically at
the same frequency. We have the SOHO photos showing an object that is
obviously not Saturn, Mars, or a comet, which in fact looks like an
enormous starship, visible on images taken at infrared, optical, and
ultraviolet frequencies. We have the fact that the line of sight to EQ Peg
on Oct. 22 passes suspiciously close to the position of said object. We
have the tantalizing logical insight that, if a starship were in fact at
that location and wanted to communicate with confederates on Earth, it
would be very reasonable to select a wavelength of 21 centimeters, because
of the overwhelming interference virtually everywhere else. We have the
fact that the SOHO satellite, which did not have encryption capability and
simply sent its transmissions in the clear (where any amateur could read
them), mysteriously "ceased to function" shortly after these images of the
"suncruiser" began to be received. (Those who are willing to consider the
possibility that the authorities may be liars have to wonder if they simply
turned SOHO off, to prevent it from continuing to send photos of the
"suncruiser." After all, if a close up photo were to ever be transmitted,
the jig would be up.) We have the literally thousands of claims, by members
of the general public all over the world, to have seen vessels in their
skies which clearly did not come from Earth. We have thousands of
photographs of same, plus abduction stories, descriptions of aliens based
on claimed sightings, and endless tales of the efforts of "men in black" to
suppress this information. And we have our own history, clearly
demonstrating the fact that parasitic elites feel threatened when they
encounter beings with technology vastly advanced beyond their own, because
when the people find that to be the fact, the parasitic elite loses
credibility. All in all, from the perspective of a heretic who is willing
to distrust the government, I would say that a strong case can be made that
this is *not* a hoax. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Dr. Nathan Cohen, of Boston University, has looked carefully at the posted
signals, and has stated publicly his opinion that they constitute a hoax.
The president of the SETI League, Dr. Paul Shuch, has published a press
release offering a similar view. You can also read a popular account of the
event by Alan Boyle at MSNBC and a detailed analysis of the posted spectra
by Michael Theroux.

                   Coda

                   It might interest readers to note that the announcement
of a real SETI signal would proceed quite differently than what's
transpired here.

***{Nope. As demonstrated above, it might very well proceed *exactly* as
what has transpired here. --MJ}***

First and foremost, there would be no anonymity.

***{Only if we falsely assume that there is no reason to fear character
assasination or the men in black. --MJ}***

Rather, there would be ample descriptions of the signal bandwidth,
frequency and drift. There would be immediate confirmation efforts at major
radio observatories

***{Yup: non-serious "efforts" that made no attempt to examine the full
area of the source beam. --MJ}***

, and no need for ex-post-facto explanations of contradictory postings.

***{That's right: members of the establishment are superhuman, and make no
mistakes. :-) --MJ}***

There would also be no obvious fakery, as has occurred several times for
this supposed "detection."

***{There is clearly fakery going on, but the source of the fakery is
anything but obvious. To those who distrust the authorities, the true hoax
may be the claim that "Paul Dore's" SETI hit is a hoax, and in that case
the most likely perpetrator would be the government itself. --MJ}***

                   Science is, by nature, an open endeavor.

***{Not in a world where educational credentials and science funding are a
virtual monopoly of the state, and where the state has virtually unlimited
power to suppress scientific conclusions which it does not like. --MJ}***

If a researcher believes he or she has made a significant discovery, the
information about what has been found, together with all the details of the
experiment, are made public, and ultimately published in refereed journals.


***{Yup. And the "referees" (censors) are invariably people who obtained
their credentials by memorizing politically correct rubbish at state
"educational" institutions, thereby demonstrating their willingness to
believe what the state wants them to believe and do what it wants them to
do. --MJ}***

Any discovery worth making is worth verifying.

***{Unless the government decides that it is worth covering up. --MJ}***

Consequently, scientists depend on the rapid and critical scrutiny of other
researchers to either verify their discovery or to dispute it. This applies
to amateurs as well as professionals: amateur astronomers quickly make
their findings (such as a new comet) known. They do not hide the light of
discovery behind curtains of secrecy. Such tactics, reminiscent of medieval
sorcerers, should always be regarded with a good dose of healthy
skepticism.

***{Noble words, considering that the government is in the process, as we
speak, of bringing the hammer down on astronomers who go public with their
observations without first submitting them through proper channels and
obtaining government approval. The excuse they are using is the near earth
asteroid which, a few weeks ago, was momentarily thought might hit the
earth in 2028 and which, a bit later, was determined to miss the earth by
600,000 miles. "We can't have that," they say in effect. "Might cause a
panic. Therefore in the future you guys will have to wear muzzles and clear
your stuff through us." Thus, by such excuses, the lid is being clamped
down tight on free speech among astronomers. But why? Those who are willing
to distrust the government may be forgiven, I think, if they suspect that
the real fear is that some astronomer is going to take a photograph of a
certain gigantic starship one day, if it should ever move itself far enough
away from the sun to permit that, and run shouting his head off to the
press. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Are the extraterrestrials out there? Needless to say,
researchers at the SETI Institute certainly believe so.  Do we wish to find
evidence of their existence? Of course.

***{But not as much as you want to believe that you can trust the
government. --MJ}***

Has someone already done that? We don't think so.

***{That's because you believe you can trust the government. Given that
premise, the only theory that fits is the one that declares the "Paul Dore"
affair to be a hoax. However, when that premise is dislodged, the matter
takes on a quite different appearance. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   Dr. Seth Shostak

***{This fellow is hardly an unbiased observer, since he is a member of the
group who declared that the apparent SETI hit on Sep. 17 at Arecibo was
just "interference." As such, they all stand to look like fools if it turns
out that the signal found by "Paul Dore" was real. --Mitchell Jones}***

                   SETI Institute
********************************************************

***{The bottom line on this matter is simple: the assessment of this issue
is a matter of judgment, and depends on the kind of person who looks at the
data, rather than merely on the conclusions of linear logic. Most
importantly, it depends on a person's attitudes toward government, and on
his willingness to distrust the statements of persons in positions of
authority. For conformists, who are locked into the position that the
authorities would not lie, only one conclusion is possible. For heretics
who are willing to doubt the authorities, on the other hand, a very strong
case can be made that the SETI hit of "Paul Dore" was real, and that a
gigantic alien starship is parked near our sun at this very moment.

Those who think the above analysis may be on target are advised to copy
this message and spread it to the four winds while you can. You should also
copy every photo on the suncruiser site and disseminate them worldwide,
before that site is forced to shut down. If the heretical interpretation of
this situation is correct, this is the most important story in human
history, and the attempted coverup should not be permitted to succeed.

For those who notice that I have qualified my statements throughout and
wonder whether I have a strong belief one way or the other in this matter,
the answer is that I tend to question the statements of authorities, and
hence am very open to the heretical view of this situation. My main intent
in dissecting this issue, however, is to stir the pot. If no one argues for
the heretical interpretation, people will cease to think about this issue,
and will settle back into their preconceived positions. If that happens,
there is a possibility that one of the most important discoveries in human
history--contact with an exterrestrial civilization--could be simply left
by the wayside. Thus if it is possible to prove this issue one way or the
other, I would like to force the matter to that point of final resolution.

--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov  5 23:50:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19374;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:48:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:48:38 -0800
From: VCockeram aol.com
Message-ID: <d299dd2c.3642a99d aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:47:41 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
Resent-Message-ID: <"BnXh52.0.ak4.LdgGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24194
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 11/04/1998 16:44:01 Pacific Standard Time,
jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:

> Also SETI expects the signals to come accurately from a star
>  system, not several degrees away.  And they mainly look at
>  sun-like stars that are rather close.  If you do the
>  calculation for the power that must be transmitted at the
>  remote star system to be detectable at earth, the value is
>  horrendous.

A couple of what if questions here:
(1)  Assume the carrier signal is transmitted from an interstellar craft at   
      frequency of 1420 Mhz on a heading towards the solar system.

(2)  How fast would that craft be travelling towards us, (the solar system)
with the observed frequency at about 1450 Mhz?
 
(3) Could the rate at which the signal is dopplering down be an indication as
to the rate of deceleration?

(4)  Assuming the craft launch point was EQ Peg, would not the signal source
be off center from EQ Peg due to the stars motion since the date it was
launched?  (the 60's?)

(5)  Assume that the craft is powered by a fusion torch, and assuming it's on
an intercept with the solar system and undergoing a braking burn, would the
torch (exaust) be visible with an optical telescope.

Sorry for the bandwidth people but this has my curiosity really up, and I
rather am enjoying the discussion.

Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 03:52:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA24315;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:50:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:50:33 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106115746.00e5e624 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, 06 Nov 1998 06:57:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogenation/ Deuteration of Multi-Charged Ions
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ib50I2.0.rx5.9AkGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24195
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:42 PM 11/5/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Then I think pressurizing the aqueous solution
>with H2 or D2 gas might get interesting (if the
>H2 or D2 doesn't start reacting with the NO3-
>ions) through dissociation and charge exchange:
>
>M++ + D2 ---> MD+ + D+  etc.

Does the definition of De below imply the potential energy of atomic
hydrogen should be considered for this value? How could such an idea be
tested in the laboratory?


Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418

"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy

The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 07:38:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15130;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:26:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:26:39 -0800
Message-ID: <001401be0998$da42c340$7a52ddcf craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <VCockeram aol.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:19:28 -0600
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 HAA15111
Resent-Message-ID: <"YBU4-2.0.Ki3.kKnGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24196
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vince!

John Winterflood and I talked about this. Check out the web-page related to this by Dr. Ray Norris, of the CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/

Here are some important observations:

1) The wave-length of the signal is only 21cm wide. Therefore, unless the signal is coming into the antenna array from a direct, perpendicular angle, there will be a phase difference between the received signal on one side of the array, and the signal on 

the other side of the array. Because the antenna array is about 350 meters wide, this will almost certainly be the case -- and was the case with this signal.

2) Because the phase of the signal was changing, one side with respect to the other, over time, about 1 cycle each minute, this indicated, without a doubt, that the source of the signal was crossing the field of vision, and from a rather close distance, u

nless the speed of light was being violated, and in ANY case, at an angular rate quick enough to guarantee that the signal wouldn't be in the field of vision for very long.

3) Therefore, the reports that 4 people observed this signal over the course of the previous 2 weeks, could not possibly be correct. This signal was crossing the field of vision too quickly. 

4) Therefore, the original reports were either in error, or more likely, a hoax.

Hasta,

Craig Haynie (Houston)



-----Original Message-----
From: VCockeram aol.com <VCockeram@aol.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF


>In a message dated 11/04/1998 16:44:01 Pacific Standard Time,
>jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
>
>> Also SETI expects the signals to come accurately from a star
>>  system, not several degrees away.  And they mainly look at
>>  sun-like stars that are rather close.  If you do the
>>  calculation for the power that must be transmitted at the
>>  remote star system to be detectable at earth, the value is
>>  horrendous.
>
>A couple of what if questions here:
>(1)  Assume the carrier signal is transmitted from an interstellar craft at   
>      frequency of 1420 Mhz on a heading towards the solar system.
>
>(2)  How fast would that craft be travelling towards us, (the solar system)
>with the observed frequency at about 1450 Mhz?
> 
>(3) Could the rate at which the signal is dopplering down be an indication as
>to the rate of deceleration?
>
>(4)  Assuming the craft launch point was EQ Peg, would not the signal source
>be off center from EQ Peg due to the stars motion since the date it was
>launched?  (the 60's?)
>
>(5)  Assume that the craft is powered by a fusion torch, and assuming it's on
>an intercept with the solar system and undergoing a braking burn, would the
>torch (exaust) be visible with an optical telescope.
>
>Sorry for the bandwidth people but this has my curiosity really up, and I
>rather am enjoying the discussion.
>
>Vince Cockeram
>Las Vegas Nevada
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 08:07:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24332;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:58:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:58:22 -0800
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: <36431C89.B484AE0 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:58:01 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
References: <1.5.4.32.19981105224436.00e36ee8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ow2y1.0.3y5.TonGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24197
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> Innovative use of the Bucky Fuller Tetrahelix? Very interesting. I like the
> rendering a lot. What is the amount of the grant that you project will be
> needed to build it? I'm trying to get our evil landlord to fund the Piano
> Factory Art Foundation in return for violating government developer
> obligations. I would classify your sculpture as an example of Objective Art
> form. This is exactly what I'd like to encourage with Art Foundation grants.
> I think the Passive Geometric Accumulator is great work.

Horace, Dennis, Colin-

Thanks for the kind words.  I think it's a neat project too.  I figured I would
respond in one message to cut down on the bandwidth.  Our email server went nuts
yesterday, so not sure even if Vortex bounced my subscription or not.  I guess I
will find out....  TWIMC I am not ignoring anyone, I just may not have got the
mail.

Estimated cost...  I don't have a hard number yet, but the raw steel alone will
be approx. 6000-8000 lb. at ~ $1/lb.  Add cutting, welding, etc... you get the
picture.  I am ball parking $20k right now.  My immediate plan is to try and tap
multiple sources as a lump sum may be tough for most foundations to swallow.

How do I see it working?  Basic principles are vortex dynamics, frequency
coupling, and a hypothesis or two.  8^)  I would elaborate but I am pressed for
time at the moment.  I will compose the theory and post a URL for those
interested, but only as I find the time.  If you just can't wait until I get my
act together,  the frame work has already been posted to Vortex and should be in
the archive.  Keyword search "stiction" or "adhesion".  Not a high priority for
me right now as I am more interested in generating an exact BOM for quoting.  If
anyone has a favorite laser cutter/metal shop that might be interested in
working with me on the project, have them drop me a line.  

hi ho, hi ho, ........

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 08:07:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26596;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:03:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:03:09 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:59:30 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Pope visit protocols
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811061102_MC2-5F57-EF59 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"ke9p6.0.MV6.wsnGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24198
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I will probably visit Ralph Pope next week. My purpose is to verify his
measurements, not to take top-quality measurements myself. Ed Wall has our
power recording meter, I will use instantaneous meters. I criticize Newman for
using instantaneous meters, however in previous tests in our lab we determined
that the power does not vary by much, approximately 2%. This will suffice as a
first approximation.

Here is a plan by Ed and me:

1) Measure air flow rate.  We will use our handheld anemometer to verify the
reading that Ralph is getting.  Take a 9 point reading (a 3 x 3 grid) across
the front of the exhaust duct and average the values.  The outlet duct is 1' x
1'. You do not have to be terribly precise, just hold the anemometer so that
it is lined up with the airflow.  Use the 15 second averaging.  This value
should be fairly close to what Ralph's equipment is saying, although it would
have to be very far off to invalidate results. Measure airflow before warm-up
or after the run is through because you probably want to concentrate on air
delta temp during the run.

2) Record the temperature of the gauge on the rotor, then start the warm-up
with the blower off, recording start time.  When Ralph decides to end the
warm-up period by turning on the blower, record the end temperature and time
of reading before the blower comes on.  Although there are two possible false
positives for anomalous effect, namely a clogged line to the radiator and a
false reading temperature gauge, but the clogged line would show up in a
mundane delta temp for air.

3)  Ralph had what I believe was a Simpson handheld inductive ammeter.  It
looks like a pair of lobster claws that you open with a finger while holding
it.  We found it to be accurate while he was here.  Ralph will clamp it onto
the line.  The current is indicated on an analog dial. Check the ground
current, which should be close to zero.  The ground current is in the green
wire that is in the power cord, then you also need to check current in either
the white or black power cord wire.  If you cannot check the ground current,
then check current in both the black and white wires. If these two currents
(which should be about 18A when running blower and rotor motors) are not the
same, then the difference is in ground current. Use the greater of the two
values for measuring input power.  Record that current and record the voltage. 
The voltage is measured across the terminals to which the  black and white
wires are connected, while blower and rotor are running.

It would be nice to get several readings of current and voltage during the
run, but not necessary if he is getting any kind of expected O/U.  The
variations over a half-hour run are typically 2%, so it is pretty trivial.
Still, it would be good to have a voltmeter just sitting there reading input
voltage that you could glance at from time to time during the run.

4)  Measure Delta Temp.  He is expected to have something around or greater
than 20F.  We were seeing 12-13F with a CFM of 1100.  If he does have that
delta temp and the airflow is good (around 1100 CFM or anywhere close), that
is good enough confirmation for more careful testing with our better
instruments.  Delta Temp does not mean anything unless it is at steady state. 
When the blower is first turned on, for the first 20 minutes or so, the air
coming out will be exceptionally warm.  Once it reaches a point where delta
temp stays in a small range, wandering up and down, you have reached steady
state.  It is conceivable that Ralph has taken delta temp without letting it
cool down to steady state.  We can trust his thermometers for now.

If we see significant heat we may consider a serious instrumentation upgrade
to an ultrasound electronic pressure gauge, and maybe a torque sensor. The
next step is to determine why the gadget works in Georgia but not in New
Hampshire.

I will repeat these tests two or three times, and take electronic photographs
of the equipment. It should be a busy day.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 08:08:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26626;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:03:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:03:16 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:59:18 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: NOT random!
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811061102_MC2-5F57-EF58 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"JYDog3.0.vV6.0tnGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24199
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Dennis C. Lee writes:

    Random could also imply not using enough dimensions in the analysis.
  Environmental conditions that are not accepted by mainstream science as
  contributing factors could make results appear random.

No, they cannot, because the results do not appear random. They appear to be
well correlated with a small set of controlling parameters.


    I might consider geometry node effects, water charge condition,
  geographical electromagnetic and time variations, and maybe even the
  people in the room at the time (Margins of Reality - Jahn and Dunne).

These would be contributing factors to a non-existent phenomenon. You're
looking for an explanation for a random event that did not occur.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 08:53:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11544;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:49:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:49:26 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981106104823.00aed758 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 10:48:23 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
In-Reply-To: <199811061102_MC2-5F57-EF59 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"FohFD3.0.Eq2.LYoGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24200
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:59 11/6/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>1) Measure air flow rate.

that part sounded pretty good.

>3)  Ralph had what I believe was a Simpson handheld inductive ammeter.

that part sounded OK, too.  It's not a 3-phase motor is it?

>4)  Measure Delta Temp. 

You need to sample air temps over a grid like the air flow measurements.
Use the same grid and multiply respective pairs of temp and flow rate
together.

>It is conceivable that Ralph has taken delta temp without letting it
>cool down to steady state.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT.  Take readings periodically and PLOT THEM AS YOU GO
using pencil and graph paper. That way you can SEE clearly when things have
leveled off.

I was gonna suggest measuring the humidity but I see that the specific heat
of air only varies by about 1 percent over the normal humidity range.

Good luck.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 09:53:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32233;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:47 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:39 -0800
Message-Id: <199811061744.JAA28010 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 suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"dgl1J2.0.Tt7.FMpGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24202
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>So this energy separates the two atoms and all the energy is stored in the
>two atoms? Then when the atoms combine the stored energy is released again?
>Conservation of energy, no energy transfer from the environment?

A simplistic way of thinking about it is like a car with a flywheel.  The
flywheel is spinning faster (has more energy) when the atoms are separate
out in space, and it is spinning slower when they are together.  From the
outside of a car, you don't notice that the flywheel is spinning at all, it
looks like the car is sitting still.

But even in atoms at "absolute zero", the fly wheel is still spinning.  That
temperature just means that the "cars" aren't moving relative to one
another.  It says nothing about the machinery inside of the atoms.


>The expansion and contraction of the atom is spherically symmetrical.

Not really a good way to think of it.  Think of packing more stuff inside,
or shooting some of that stuff outward.  This isn't a spherical expansion or
contraction.  It is a wave interference phenomena, and happens along a line.
The emissions form a sort of smoke ring vortex in the medium of the
universe, ie, aether.  And that smoke ring vortex is what we call a
"photon".  The emission of a photon carries with it a net amount of aether
because it is a high pressure vortex.  That is the carrier that blasts one
atom away from the other to split the molecule into two atoms, via packing
an excess of aether into the two atoms.

During re-combination, a photon is emitted, and that expands the local
spacetime a tiny amount, leading to the expansion of the universe.  This is
why recent studies of distant super novae show that the expansion of the
universe is accelerating.  Basically, exothermy is an evaporation process,
just like inflation.  So Inflation never really ceased following the initial
moments of the big bang.  It continues today, and our sun is a major emitter
of aether, and contributor to the expansion of the local universe.

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 09:53:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32201;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:46 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:44:41 -0800
Message-Id: <199811061744.JAA28028 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: Red Shift
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZafGx.0.2t7.DMpGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24201
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>

>That was an interesting post.  Wouldn't the red
>shift of light from the binary reaching the objects
>also change?
>
>Jack Smith

change compared to what?  The red shift for the star approaching us is
bluer, the red shift of the star moving away from us is redder, than the
*nominal* red shift for the system.  

This is on average, all wavelengths.  But it doesn't account for any
localized effects such as the light of ions at the base of a transition
region like for our sun with C IV.  

I don't recall the details of what we were talking about to answer this
better.  When you speak of light and red shift, you have to get real precise
about where the photons are being emitted, and how the matter is moving that
is emitting it.  And if you want to include discussion of my aether models,
then you have to also get precise about the way the aether is moving in a
region where the photons are emitted.

C IV photons are emitted at the base of the solar transition region, and
have a net red shift even though the sun isn't moving away from us.  Ne VIII
are emitted from the top of the transition region and have a net blue shift
even though the sun isn't moving toward us.  I say both of those are due to
"space" accelerating past the C IV ions and then ramming into the aether of
the rest of the universe and decelerating in the regions of the Ne VIII ions
photon emission.  So I am saying that the red and blue shifting of those
ions is due to the motion of space, and not to the true motions of the ions
themselves.

This is a wierd concept to try to explain, and it is wierd to contemplate.
but I think that the medium of the universe can move.  And if that is so,
then it must also be capable of accelerating and decelerating.  Photons
emitted in such regions will be shifted in frequency.  And there is evidence
that in fact photons are shifted in this manner.

More proof is needed though.

Later, Ross Tessien




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 09:59:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04738;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:55:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:55:42 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106180233.00e43180 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:02:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"U6QnV1.0.y91.UWpGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24203
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 10:59 AM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:

>If we see significant heat we may consider a serious instrumentation upgrade
>to an ultrasound electronic pressure gauge, and maybe a torque sensor. The
>next step is to determine why the gadget works in Georgia but not in New
>Hampshire.

You know how the whirl pool that forms above the drain port of a bathtub as
it is emptying turns one way in the Northern Hemisphere and the other way at
the Southern Hemisphere? There maybe variations of vortex intensity as one
traverses across the same hemisphere. Since this is a vortex type principal,
The way a bathtub vortex forms in Georgia and New Hampshire maybe different.
This will indicate whether the disk topology needs to be adjusted according
to regions. 

>I will repeat these tests two or three times, and take electronic photographs
>of the equipment. It should be a busy day.

How about high speed (slow motion) video of the vortex whirlpools in Georgia
and New Hampshire? Perhaps a Tornado Tube Tm that connects two 1 liter soda
bottles together? One bottle is filled 3/4s full with water. Turn it upside
down and wave it in a conical motion and a whirlpool vortex forms. If
there's a noticeable difference in the averaged vortex pattern at the two
locations, the way the vortex forms in the machine maybe affected also.

Very high speed computer strobe cameras (20,000 - 30,000 - 100,000 fps?)
aimed at the window over the disk edge maybe capable to show vortex
characteristics real time at various settings.


Paranoia of the day:

A certain most favored professor said that 'they' can get you for using
certain terminology that triggers preconceived concepts. All terms should be
relative to conventional mainstream concepts. Nothing fancy, just plain
looking stuff. No Over-* words, or Free-* words, or Anti-* words.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:17:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12301;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:12:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:12:59 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106181956.00e43cf8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:19:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
Cc: John_Steck css.mot.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"4sk_v3.0.303.hmpGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24204
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:58 AM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:


>
>Estimated cost...  I don't have a hard number yet, but the raw steel alone will
>be approx. 6000-8000 lb. at ~ $1/lb.  Add cutting, welding, etc... you get the
>picture.  I am ball parking $20k right now.  My immediate plan is to try
and tap
>multiple sources as a lump sum may be tough for most foundations to swallow.

Well if the Art Foundation got rolling and projects were funded, one of the
requirements maybe that the sculpture should be placed in Boston since we
were a government funded community originally. 

>How do I see it working?  Basic principles are vortex dynamics, frequency
>coupling, and a hypothesis or two.  8^)  I would elaborate but I am pressed for
>time at the moment.  I will compose the theory and post a URL for those
>interested, but only as I find the time.

Well a theory of what type of energy is accumulated and how this relates to
people in the vicinity that experience the atmosphere the sculpture creates
maybe something to consider. Is there a difference between right handed and
left handed turns? Could the elements be analysed by mass chord theory and
optimized in size?

  If you just can't wait until I get my
>act together,  the frame work has already been posted to Vortex and should
be in
>the archive.  Keyword search "stiction" or "adhesion".  Not a high priority for
>me right now as I am more interested in generating an exact BOM for quoting.

I will keep you in mind if there is success with the Foundation.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:22:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA16021;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:19:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:19:24 -0800
Message-ID: <36433DA3.679FDDCB ariel.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:19:15 -0500
From: Terren Suydam <terren ariel.com>
Organization: Netmonkey Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Red Shift
References: <199811061744.JAA28028 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pZTl_2.0.9w3.ispGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24207
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> 
> This is a wierd concept to try to explain, and it is wierd to contemplate.
> but I think that the medium of the universe can move.  And if that is so,
> then it must also be capable of accelerating and decelerating.  Photons
> emitted in such regions will be shifted in frequency.  And there is evidence
> that in fact photons are shifted in this manner.
> 
> More proof is needed though.
> 
> Later, Ross Tessien

This is one thing I wondered about actually... you've described the
aether, i.e. space, to be like an ocean, or fluid.  And, aether is
emitted from stars, and accelerates as it's emitted,  like smoke rising
from an incense burner. I wonder about turbulence in the aether - it
seems to me that you'd almost have to expect turbulence a certain
distance from the sun, and how it is that we don't see the effects of
that turbulence, given that it would have to accelerate and decelerate
'particles' or whatever in a very nonlinear fashion.

Terren

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:24:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA13384;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:15:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:15:05 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36433C9A.2DCF8F01 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:14:50 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Pope visit protocols
References: <1.5.4.32.19981106180233.00e43180 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bIP9d.0.zG3.eopGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24205
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> Very high speed computer strobe cameras (20,000 - 30,000 - 100,000 fps?)
> aimed at the window over the disk edge maybe capable to show vortex
> characteristics real time at various settings.

What vortex characteristic are you attempting to observe?  The action is
non-linear chaotic.  Just curious.



-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:34:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA13397;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:15:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:15:07 -0800
Message-ID: <36433DA3.250E earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:19:15 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Pollan: genetically engineered crops  Part 1/2  10.25.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-TN9N1.0.5H3.eopGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24206
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Campaign for Food Safety (formerly known as the Pure Food Campaign) 
860 Highway 61, Little Marais, Minnisota 55614 
Activist or Media Inquiries: (218) 226-4164,  Fax: (218) 226-4157
Ronnie Cummins E-mail: alliance mr.net    http://www.purefood.org

 Save Organic Standards -- Break Corporate Control -- Genetically
Enginered Food -- Toxic Food --   Current Alert/Upcoming Events -- Food
Slander-- Food Irradiation -- Mad Cow & Pig Disease -- Cloning &
Patenting -- rBGH -- Links -- Legislation

To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes, send an
email to:  majordomo mr.net with the simple message:
subscribe pure-food-action

Playing God in the Garden: New York Times Magazine on GE Crops 
The New York Times Sunday Magazine  October 25, 1998

"Playing God in the Garden" by Michael Pollan

Today I planted something new in my vegetable garden -- something very
new, as a matter of fact. It's a potato called the New Leaf Superior,
which has been genetically engineered -- by Monsanto, the chemical giant
recently turned "life sciences" giant -- to produce its own insecticide.
This it can do in every cell of every leaf, stem, flower, root and
(here's the creepy part) spud. The scourge of potatoes has always been
the Colorado potato beetle, a handsome and voracious insect that can
pick a plant clean of its leaves virtually overnight. Any Colorado
potato beetle that takes so much as a nibble of my New Leafs will
supposedly keel over and die, its digestive tract pulped, in effect, by
the bacterial toxin manufactured in the leaves of these otherwise
ordinary Superiors. (Superiors are the thin-skinned white spuds sold
fresh in the supermarket.) You're probably wondering if I plan to eat
these potatoes, or serve them to my family. That's still up in the air;
it's only the first week of May, and harvest is a few months off.

Certainly my New Leafs are aptly named. They're part of a new class of
crop plants that is rapidly changing the American food chain. This year,
the fourth year that genetically altered seed has been on the market,
some 45 million acres of American farmland have been planted with
biotech crops, most of it corn, soybeans, cotton and potatoes that have
been engineered to either produce their own pesticides or withstand
herbicides. Though Americans have already begun to eat genetically
engineered potatoes, corn and soybeans, industry research confirms what
my own informal surveys suggest: hardly any of us knows it. The reason
is not hard to find. The biotech industry, with the concurrence of the
Food and Drug Administration, has decided we don't need to know it, so
biotech foods carry no identifying labels. In a dazzling feat of
positioning, the industry has succeeded in depicting these plants
simultaneously as the linchpins of a biological revolution -- part of a
"new agricultural paradigm" that will make farming more sustainable,
feed the world and improve health and nutrition -- and, oddly enough, as
the same old stuff, at least so far as those of us at the eating end of
the food chain should be concerned.

This convenient version of reality has been roundly rejected by both
consumers and farmers across the Atlantic. Last summer, biotech food
emerged as the most explosive environmental issue in Europe. Protesters
have destroyed dozens of field trials of the very same "frankenplants"
(as they are sometimes called) that we Americans are already serving for
dinner, and throughout Europe the public has demanded that biotech food
be labeled in the market.

By growing my own transgenic crop -- and talking with scientists and
farmers involved with biotech -- I hoped to discover which of us was
crazy. Are the Europeans overreacting, or is it possible that we've been
underreacting to genetically engineered food?

After digging two shallow trenches in my garden and lining them with
compost, I untied the purple mesh bag of seed potatoes that Monsanto had
sent and opened up the Grower Guide tied around its neck. (Potatoes, you
may recall from kindergarten experiments, are grown not from seed but
from the eyes of other potatoes.) The guide put me in mind not so much
of planting potatoes as booting up a new software release. By "opening
and using this product," the card stated, I was now "licensed" to grow
these potatoes, but only for a single generation; the crop I would water
and tend and harvest was mine, yet also not mine. That is, the potatoes
I will harvest come August are mine to eat or sell, but their genes
remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous
United States patents, including Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938
and 5,352,605. Were I to save even one of them to plant next year
--something I've routinely done with potatoes in the past -- I would be
breaking Federal law. The small print in the Grower Guide also brought
the news that my potato plants were themselves a pesticide, registered
with the Environmental Protection Agency.

If proof were needed that the intricate industrial food chain that
begins with seeds and ends on our dinner plates is in the throes of
profound change, the small print that accompanied my New Leaf will do.
That food chain has been unrivaled for its productivity -- on average, a
single American farmer today grows enough food each year to feed 100
people. But this accomplishment has come at a price. The modern
industrial farmer cannot achieve such yields without enormous amounts of
chemical fertilizer, pesticide, machinery and fuel, a set of
capital-intensive inputs, as they're called, that saddle the farmer with
debt, threaten his health, erode his soil and destroy its fertility,
pollute the ground water and compromise the safety of the food we eat.

We've heard all this before, of course, but usually from
environmentalists and organic farmers; what is new is to hear the same
critique from conventional farmers, government officials and even many
agribusiness corporations, all of whom now acknowledge that our food
chain stands in need of reform. Sounding more like Wendell Berry than
the agribusiness giant it is, Monsanto declared in its most recent
annual report that "current agricultural technology is not sustainable."

What is supposed to rescue the American food chain is biotechnology --
the replacement of expensive and toxic chemical inputs with expensive
but apparently benign genetic information: crops that, like my New
Leafs, can protect themselves from insects and disease without being
sprayed with pesticides. With the advent of biotechnology, agriculture
is entering the information age, and more than any other company,
Monsanto is positioning itself to become its Microsoft, supplying the
proprietary "operating systems" -- the metaphor is theirs -- to run this
new generation of plants.

There is, of course, a second food chain in America: organic
agriculture. And while it is still only a fraction of the size of the
conventional food chain, it has been growing in leaps and bounds -- in
large part because of concerns over the safety of conventional
agriculture. Organic farmers have been among biotechnology's fiercest
critics, regarding crops like my New Leafs as inimical to their
principles and, potentially, a threat to their survival. That's because
Bt, the bacterial toxin produced in my New Leafs (and in many other
biotech plants) happens to be the same insecticide organic growers have
relied on for decades. Instead of being flattered by the imitation,
however, organic farmers are up in arms: the widespread use of Bt in
biotech crops is likely to lead to insect resistance, thus robbing
organic growers of one of their most critical tools; that is, Monsanto's
version of sustainable agriculture may threaten precisely those farmers
who pioneered sustainable farming.

Sprouting

After several days of drenching rain, the sun appeared on May 15, and so
did my New Leafs. A dozen deep-green shoots pushed up out of the soil
and commenced to grow -- faster and more robustly than any of the other
potatoes in my garden. Apart from their vigor, though, my New Leafs
looked perfectly normal. And yet as I watched them multiply their
lustrous dark-green leaves those first few days, eagerly awaiting the
arrival of the first doomed beetle, I couldn't help thinking of them as
existentially different from the rest of my plants.

All domesticated plants are in some sense artificial -- living archives
of both cultural and natural information that we in some sense "design."
A given type of potato reflects the values we've bred into it -- one
that has been selected to yield long, handsome french fries or
unblemished round potato chips is the expression of a national food
chain that likes its potatoes highly processed. At the same time, some
of the more delicate European fingerlings I'm growing alongside my New
Leafs imply an economy of small market growers and a taste for eating
potatoes fresh. Yet all these qualities already existed in the potato,
somewhere within the range of genetic possibilities presented by Solanum
tuberosum. Since distant species in nature cannot be crossed, the
breeder's art has always run up against a natural limit of what a potato
is willing, or able, to do. Nature, in effect, has exercised a kind of
veto on what culture can do with a potato.

My New Leafs are different. Although Monsanto likes to depict
biotechnology as just another in an ancient line of human modifications
of nature going back to fermentation, in fact genetic engineering
overthrows the old rules governing the relationship of nature and
culture in a plant. For the first time, breeders can bring qualities
from anywhere in nature into the genome of a plant -- from flounders
(frost tolerance), from viruses (disease resistance) and, in the case of
my potatoes, from Bacillus thuringiensis, the soil bacterium that
produces the organic insecticide known as Bt. The introduction into a
plant of genes transported not only across species but whole phyla means
that the wall of that plant's essential identity -- its irreducible
wildness, you might say -- has been breached.

But what is perhaps most astonishing about the New Leafs coming up in my
garden is the human intelligence that the inclusion of the Bt gene
represents. In the past, that intelligence resided outside the plant, in
the mind of the organic farmers who deployed Bt (in the form of a spray)
to manipulate the ecological relationship of certain insects and a
certain bacterium as a way to foil those insects. The irony about the
New Leafs is that the cultural information they encode happens to be
knowledge that resides in the heads of the very sort of people -- that
is, organic growers -- who most distrust high technology.

One way to look at biotechnology is that it allows a larger portion of
human intelligence to be incorporated into the plant itself. In this
sense, my New Leafs are just plain smarter than the rest of my potatoes.
The others will depend on my knowledge and experience when the Colorado
potato beetles strike; the New Leafs, knowing what I know about bugs and
Bt, will take care of themselves. So while my biotech plants might seem
like alien beings, that's not quite right. They're more like us than
like other plants because there's more of us in them.

Growing

To find out how my potatoes got that way, I traveled to suburban St.
Louis in early June. My New Leafs are clones of clones of plants that
were first engineered seven years ago in Monsanto's $150 million
research facility, a long, low-slung brick building on the banks of the
Missouri that would look like any other corporate complex were it not
for the 26 greenhouses that crown its roof like shimmering crenellations
of glass.

Dave Stark, a molecular biologist and co-director of Naturemark,
Monsanto's potato subsidiary, escorted me through the clean rooms where
potatoes are genetically engineered. Technicians sat at lab benches
before petri dishes in which fingernail-size sections of potato stem had
been placed in a nutrient mixture. To this the technicians added a
solution of agrobacterium, a disease bacterium whose modus operandi is
to break into a plant cell's nucleus and insert some of its own DNA.
Essentially, scientists smuggle the Bt gene into the agrobacterium's
payload, and then the bacterium splices it into the potato's DNA. The
technicians also add a "marker" gene, a kind of universal product code
that allows Monsanto to identify its plants after they leave the lab.

A few days later, once the slips of potato stem have put down roots,
they're moved to the potato greenhouse up on the roof. Here, Glenda
DeBrecht, a horticulturist, invited me to don latex gloves and help her
transplant pinky-size plantlets from their petri dish to small pots. The
whole operation is performed thousands of times, largely because there
is so much uncertainty about the outcome. There's no way of telling
where in the genome the new DNA will land, and if it winds up in the
wrong place, the new gene won't be expressed (or it will be poorly
expressed) or the plant may be a freak. I was struck by how the
technology could at once be astoundingly sophisticated and yet also a
shot in the genetic dark.

"There's still a lot we don't understand about gene expression," Stark
acknowledged. A great many factors influence whether, or to what extent,
a new gene will do what it's supposed to, including the environment. In
one early German experiment, scientists succeeded in splicing the gene
for redness into petunias. All went as planned until the weather turned
hot and an entire field of red petunias suddenly and inexplicably lost
their pigment. The process didn't seem nearly as simple as Monsanto's
cherished software metaphor would suggest.

When I got home from St. Louis, I phoned Richard Lewontin, the Harvard
geneticist, to ask him what he thought of the software metaphor. "From
an intellectual-property standpoint, it's exactly right," he said. "But
it's a bad one in terms of biology. It implies you feed a program into a
machine and get predictable results. But the genome is very noisy. If my
computer made as many mistakes as an organism does" -- in interpreting
its DNA, he meant -- "I'd throw it out."

I asked him for a better metaphor. "An ecosystem," he offered. "You can
always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of
knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect
the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the
organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get
one rude shock after another."

Flowering

My own crop was thriving when I got home from St. Louis; the New Leafs
were as big as bushes, crowned with slender flower stalks. Potato
flowers are actually quite pretty, at least by vegetable standards --
five-petaled pink stars with yellow centers that give off a faint rose
perfume. One sultry afternoon I watched the bumblebees making their lazy
rounds of my potato blossoms, thoughtlessly powdering their thighs with
yellow pollen grains before lumbering off to appointments with other
blossoms, others species.

Uncertainty is the theme that unifies much of the criticism leveled
against biotech agriculture by scientists and environmentalists. By
planting millions of acres of genetically altered plants, we have
introduced something novel into the environment and the food chain, the
consequences of which are not -- and at this point, cannot be --
completely understood. One of the uncertainties has to do with those
grains of pollen bumblebees are carting off from my potatoes. That
pollen contains Bt genes that may wind up in some other, related plant,
possibly conferring a new evolutionary advantage on that species. "Gene
flow," the scientific term for this phenomenon, occurs only between
closely related species, and since the potato evolved in South America,
the chances are slim that my Bt potato genes will escape into the wilds
of Connecticut. (It's interesting to note that while biotechnology
depends for its power on the ability to move genes freely among species
and even phyla, its environmental safety depends on the very opposite
phenomenon: on the integrity of species in nature and their rejection of
foreign genetic material.)

Yet what happens if and when Peruvian farmers plant Bt potatoes? Or when
I plant a biotech crop that does have local relatives? A study reported
in Nature last month found that plant traits introduced by genetic
engineering were more likely to escape into the wild than the same
traits introduced conventionally.

Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Technology Assessment in
Washington, told me he believes such escapes are inevitable. "Biological
pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the 21st century," he
said when I reached him by phone. "This is not like chemical pollution
-- an oil spill -- that eventually disperses. Biological pollution is an
entirely different model, more like a disease. Is Monsanto going to be
held legally responsible when one of its transgenes creates a superweed
or resistant insect?"

Kimbrell maintains that because our pollution laws were written before
the advent of biotechnology, the new industry is being regulated under
an ill-fitting regime designed for the chemical age. Congress has so far
passed no environmental law dealing specifically with biotech. Monsanto,
for its part, claims that it has thoroughly examined all the potential
environmental and health risks of its biotech plants, and points out
that three regulatory agencies -- the U.S.D.A., the E.P.A. and the
F.D.A. -- have signed off on its products. Speaking of the New Leaf,
Dave Stark told me, "This is the most intensively studied potato in
history."

Significant uncertainties remain, however. Take the case of insect
resistance to Bt, a potential form of "biological pollution" that could
end the effectiveness of one of the safest insecticides we have -- and
cripple the organic farmers who depend on it. The theory, which is now
accepted by most entomologists, is that Bt crops will add so much of the
toxin to the environment that insects will develop resistance to it.
Until now, resistance hasn't been a worry because the Bt sprays break
down quickly in sunlight and organic farmers use them only sparingly.
Resistance is essentially a form of co-evolution that seems to occur
only when a given pest population is threatened with extinction; under
that pressure, natural selection favors whatever chance mutations will
allow the species to change and survive.

Working with the E.P.A., Monsanto has developed a "resistance-management
plan" to postpone that eventuality. Under the plan, farmers who plant Bt
crops must leave a certain portion of their land in non-Bt crops to
create "refuges" for the targeted insects. The goal is to prevent the
first Bt-resistant Colorado potato beetle from mating with a second
resistant bug, unleashing a new race of superbeetles. The theory is that
when a Bt-resistant bug does show up, it can be induced to mate with a
susceptible bug from the refuge, thus diluting the new gene for
resistance.

But a lot has to go right for Mr. Wrong to meet Miss Right. No one is
sure how big the refuges need to be, where they should be situated or
whether the farmers will cooperate (creating havens for a detested pest
is counter-intuitive, after all), not to mention the bugs. In the case
of potatoes, the E.P.A. has made the plan voluntary and lets the
companies themselves implement it; there are no E.P.A. enforcement
mechanisms. Which is why most of the organic farmers I spoke to
dismissed the regulatory scheme as window dressing.

Monsanto executives offer two basic responses to criticism of their Bt
crops. The first is that their voluntary resistance-management plans
will work, though the company's definition of success will come as small
consolation to an organic farmer: Monsanto scientists told me that if
all goes well, resistance can be postponed for 30 years. (Some
scientists believe it will come in three to five years.) The second
response is more troubling. In St. Louis, I met with Jerry Hjelle,
Monsanto's vice president for regulatory affairs. Hjelle told me that
resistance should not unduly concern us since "there are a thousand
other Bt's out there" -- other insecticidal proteins. "We can handle
this problem with new products," he said. "The critics don't know what
we have in the pipeline."

And then Hjelle uttered two words that I thought had been expunged from
the corporate vocabulary a long time ago: "Trust us."

Trust" is a key to the success of biotechnology in the marketplace, and
while I was in St. Louis, I asked Hjelle and several of his colleagues
why they thought the Europeans were resisting biotech food. Austria,
Luxembourg and Norway, risking trade war with the United States, have
refused to accept imports of genetically altered crops. Activists in
England have been staging sit-ins and "decontaminations" in biotech test
fields. A group of French farmers broke into a warehouse and ruined a
shipment of biotech corn seed by urinating on it. The Prince of Wales,
who is an ardent organic gardener, waded into the biotech debate last
June, vowing in a column in The Daily Telegraph that he would never eat,
or serve to his guests, the fruits of a technology that "takes mankind
into realms that belong to God and to God alone."

Monsanto executives are quick to point out that mad cow disease has made
Europeans extremely sensitive about the safety of their food chain and
has undermined confidence in their regulators. "They don't have a
trusted agency like the F.D.A. looking after the safety of their food
supply," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate
communications. Over the summer, Angell was dispatched repeatedly to
Europe to put out the P.R. fires; some at Monsanto worry these could
spread to the United States.

I checked with the F.D.A. to find out exactly what had been done to
insure the safety of this potato. I was mystified by the fact that the
Bt toxin was not being treated as a "food additive" subject to labeling,
even though the new protein is expressed in the potato itself. The label
on a bag of biotech potatoes in the supermarket will tell a consumer all
about the nutrients they contain, even the trace amounts of copper. Yet
it is silent not only about the fact that those potatoes are the product
of genetic engineering but also about their containing an insecticide.

At the F.D.A., I was referred to James Maryanski, who oversees biotech
food at the agency. I began by asking him why the F.D.A. didn't consider
Bt a food additive. Under F.D.A. law, any novel substance added to a
food must -- unless it is "generally regarded as safe" ("GRAS," in
F.D.A. parlance) -- be thoroughly tested and if it changes the product
in any way, must be labeled.

"That's easy," Maryanski said. "Bt is a pesticide, so it's exempt" from
F.D.A. regulation. That is, even though a Bt potato is plainly a food,
for the purposes of Federal regulation it is not a food but a pesticide
and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the E.P.A.

Yet even in the case of those biotech crops over which the F.D.A. does
have jurisdiction, I learned that F.D.A. regulation of biotech food has
been largely voluntary since 1992, when Vice President Dan Quayle issued
regulatory guidelines for the industry as part of the Bush
Administration's campaign for "regulatory relief." Under the guidelines,
new proteins engineered into foods are regarded as additives (unless
they're pesticides), but as Maryanski explained, "the determination
whether a new protein is GRAS can be made by the company." Companies
with a new biotech food decide for themselves whether they need to
consult with the F.D.A. by following a series of "decision trees" that
pose yes or no questions like this one: "Does ... the introduced protein
raise any safety concern?"

Since my Bt potatoes were being regulated as a pesticide by the E.P.A.
rather than as a food by the F.D.A., I wondered if the safety standards
are the same. "Not exactly," Maryanski explained. The F.D.A. requires "a
reasonable certainty of no harm" in a food additive, a standard most
pesticides could not meet. After all, "pesticides are toxic to
something," Maryanski pointed out, so the E.P.A. instead establishes
human "tolerances" for each chemical and then subjects it to a
risk-benefit analysis.

When I called the E.P.A. and asked if the agency had tested my Bt
potatoes for safety as a human food, the answer was ... not exactly. It
seems the E.P.A. works from the assumption that if the original potato
is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole New Leaf
package is presumed to be safe. Some geneticists believe this reasoning
is flawed, contending that the process of genetic engineering itself may
cause subtle, as yet unrecognized changes in a food.

The original Superior potato is safe, obviously enough, so that left the
Bt toxin, which was fed to mice, and they "did fine, had no side
effects," I was told. I always feel better knowing that my food has been
poison-tested by mice, though in this case there was a small catch: the
mice weren't actually eating the potatoes, not even an extract from the
potatoes, but rather straight Bt produced in a bacterial culture.

So are my New Leafs safe to eat? Probably, assuming that a New Leaf is
nothing more than the sum of a safe potato and a safe pesticide, and
further assuming that the E.P.A.'s idea of a safe pesticide is
tantamount to a safe food. Yet I still had a question. Let us assume
that my potatoes are a pesticide -- a very safe pesticide. Every
pesticide in my garden shed -- including the Bt sprays -- carries a
lengthy warning label. The label on my bottle of Bt says, among other
things, that I should avoid inhaling the spray or getting it in an open
wound. So if my New Leaf potatoes contain an E.P.A.-registered
pesticide, why don't they carry some such label?

Maryanski had the answer. At least for the purposes of labeling, my New
Leafs have morphed yet again, back into a food: the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act gives the F.D.A. sole jurisdiction over the labeling of
plant foods, and the F.D.A. has ruled that biotech foods need be labeled
only if they contain known allergens or have otherwise been "materially"
changed.

But isn't turning a potato into a pesticide a material change?

It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the
F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food
labels.

I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next
time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A.
in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went
even further. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of
biotech food," he said. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as
possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job."

Meeting the Beetles

My Colorado potato beetle vigil came to an end the first week of July,
shortly before I went to Idaho to visit potato growers. I spied a single
mature beetle sitting on a New Leaf leaf; when I reached to pick it up,
the beetle fell drunkenly to the ground. It had been sickened by the
plant and would soon be dead. My New Leafs were working.

>From where a typical American potato grower stands, the New Leaf looks
very much like a godsend. That's because where the typical potato grower
stands is in the middle of a bright green field that has been doused
with so much pesticide that the leaves of his plants wear a dull white
chemical bloom that troubles him as much as it does the rest of us. Out
there, at least, the calculation is not complex: a product that promises
to eliminate the need for even a single spraying of pesticide is, very
simply, an economic and environmental boon.

No one can make a better case for a biotech crop than a potato farmer,
which is why Monsanto was eager to introduce me to several large
growers. Like many farmers today, the ones I met feel trapped by the
chemical inputs required to extract the high yields they must achieve in
order to pay for the chemical inputs they need. The economics are
daunting: a potato farmer in south-central Idaho will spend roughly
$1,965 an acre (mainly on chemicals, electricity, water and seed) to
grow a crop that, in a good year, will earn him maybe $1,980. That's how
much a french-fry processor will pay for the 20 tons of potatoes a
single Idaho acre can yield. (The real money in agriculture -- 90
percent of the value added to the food we eat -- is in selling inputs to
farmers and then processing their crops.)

Danny Forsyth laid out the dismal economics of potato farming for me one
sweltering morning at the coffee shop in downtown Jerome, Idaho.
Forsyth, 60, is a slight blue-eyed man with a small gray ponytail; he
farms 3,000 acres of potatoes, corn and wheat, and he spoke about
agricultural chemicals like a man desperate to kick a bad habit. "None
of us would use them if we had any choice," he said glumly.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:46:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17636;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:22:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:22:18 -0800
Message-ID: <36433F4A.2EFF earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:26:18 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Pollan: genetically engineered crops  Part 2/2  10.25.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lRf9x.0.FJ4.NvpGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24208
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I asked him to walk me through a season's regimen. It typically begins
early in the spring with a soil fumigant; to control nematodes, many
potato farmers douse their fields with a chemical toxic enough to kill
every trace of microbial life in the soil. Then, at planting, a systemic
insecticide (like Thimet) is applied to the soil; this will be absorbed
by the young seedlings and, for several weeks, will kill any insect that
eats their leaves. After planting, Forsyth puts down an herbicide --
Sencor or Eptam -- to "clean" his field of all weeds. When the potato
seedlings are six inches tall, an herbicide may be sprayed a second time
to control weeds.

Idaho farmers like Forsyth farm in vast circles defined by the rotation
of a pivot irrigation system, typically 135 acres to a circle; I'd seen
them from 30,000 feet flying in, a grid of verdant green coins pressed
into a desert of scrubby brown. Pesticides and fertilizers are simply
added to the irrigation system, which on Forsyth's farm draws most of
its water from the nearby Snake River. Along with their water, Forsyth's
potatoes may receive 10 applications of chemical fertilizer during the
growing season. Just before the rows close -- when the leaves of one row
of plants meet those of the next -- he begins spraying Bravo, a
fungicide, to control late blight, one of the biggest threats to the
potato crop. (Late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine, is an
airborne fungus that turns stored potatoes into rotting mush.) Blight is
such a serious problem that the E.P.A. currently allows farmers to spray
powerful fungicides that haven't passed the usual approval process.
Forsyth's potatoes will receive eight applications of fungicide.

Twice each summer, Forsyth hires a crop duster to spray for aphids.
Aphids are harmless in themselves, but they transmit the leafroll virus,
which in Russet Burbank potatoes causes net necrosis, a brown spotting
that will cause a processor to reject a whole crop. It happened to
Forsyth last year. "I lost 80,000 bags" -- they're a hundred pounds each
-- "to net necrosis," he said. "Instead of getting $4.95 a bag, I had to
take $2 a bag from the dehydrator, and I was lucky to get that." Net
necrosis is a purely cosmetic defect; yet because big buyers like
McDonald's believe (with good reason) that we don't like to see brown
spots in our fries, farmers like Danny Forsyth must spray their fields
with some of the most toxic chemicals in use, including an
organophosphate called Monitor.

"Monitor is a deadly chemical," Forsyth said. "I won't go into a field
for four or five days after it's been sprayed -- even to fix a broken
pivot." That is, he would sooner lose a whole circle to drought than
expose himself or an employee to Monitor, which has been found to cause
neurological damage.

It's not hard to see why a farmer like Forsyth, struggling against tight
margins and heartsick over chemicals, would leap at a New Leaf -- or, in
his case, a New Leaf Plus, which is protected from leafroll virus as
well as beetles. "The New Leaf means I can skip a couple of sprayings,
including the Monitor," he said. "I save money, and I sleep better. It
also happens to be a nice-looking spud." The New Leafs don't come
cheaply, however. They cost between $20 and $30 extra per acre in
"technology fees" to Monsanto.

Forsyth and I discussed organic agriculture, about which he had the
usual things to say ("That's all fine on a small scale, but they don't
have to feed the world"), as well as a few things I'd never heard from a
conventional farmer: "I like to eat organic food, and in fact I raise a
lot of it at the house. The vegetables we buy at the market we just wash
and wash and wash. I'm not sure I should be saying this, but I always
plant a small area of potatoes without any chemicals. By the end of the
season, my field potatoes are fine to eat, but any potatoes I pulled
today are probably still full of systemics. I don't eat them."

Forsyth's words came back to me a few hours later, during lunch at the
home of another potato farmer. Steve Young is a progressive and
prosperous potato farmer -- he calls himself an agribusinessman. In
addition to his 10,000 acres -- the picture window in his family room
gazes out on 85 circles, all computer-controlled -- Young owns a share
in a successful fertilizer distributorship. His wife prepared a lavish
feast for us, and after Dave, their 18-year-old, said grace, adding a
special prayer for me (the Youngs are devout Mormons), she passed around
a big bowl of homemade potato salad. As I helped myself, my Monsanto
escort asked what was in the salad, flashing me a smile that suggested
she might already know. "It's a combination of New Leafs and some of our
regular Russets," our hostess said proudly. "Dug this very morning."

After talking to farmers like Steve Young and Danny Forsyth, and walking
fields made virtually sterile by a drenching season-long rain of
chemicals, you could understand how Monsanto's New Leaf potato does
indeed look like an environmental boon. Set against current practices,
growing New Leafs represents a more sustainable way of potato farming.
This advance must be weighed, of course, against everything we don't yet
know about New Leafs -- and a few things we do: like the problem of Bt
resistance I had heard so much about back East. While I was in Idaho and
Washington State, I asked potato farmers to show me their refuges. This
proved to be a joke.

"I guess that's a refuge over there," one Washington farmer told me,
pointing to a cornfield.

Monsanto's grower contract never mentions the word "refuge" and only
requires that farmers plant no more than 80 percent of their fields in
New Leaf. Basically, any field not planted in New Leaf is considered a
refuge, even if that field has been sprayed to kill every bug in it.
Farmers call such acreage a clean field; calling it a refuge is a
stretch at best.

It probably shouldn't come as a big surprise that conventional farmers
would have trouble embracing the notion of an insect refuge. To insist
on real and substantial refuges is to ask them to start thinking of
their fields in an entirely new way, less as a factory than as an
ecosystem. In the factory, Bt is another in a long line of "silver
bullets" that work for a while and then get replaced; in the ecosystem,
all bugs are not necessarily bad, and the relationships between various
species can be manipulated to achieve desired ends -- like the long-term
sustainability of Bt.

This is, of course, precisely the approach organic farmers have always
taken to their fields, and after my lunch with the Youngs that
afternoon, I paid a brief visit to an organic potato grower. Mike Heath
is a rugged, laconic man in his mid-50's; like most of the organic
farmers I've met, he looks as though he spends a lot more time out of
doors than a conventional farmer, and he probably does: chemicals are,
among other things, labor-saving devices. While we drove around his 500
acres in a battered old pickup, I asked him about biotechnology. He
voiced many reservations -- it was synthetic, there were too many
unknowns -- but his main objection to planting a biotech potato was
simply that "it's not what my customers want."

That point was driven home last December when the Department of
Agriculture proposed a new "organic standards" rule that, among other
things, would have allowed biotech crops to carry an organic label.
After receiving a flood of outraged cards and letters, the agency backed
off. (As did Monsanto, which asked the U.S.D.A. to shelve the issue for
three years.) Heath suggested that biotech may actually help organic
farmers by driving worried consumers to the organic label.

I asked Heath about the New Leaf. He had no doubt resistance would come
-- "the bugs are always going to be smarter than we are" -- and said it
was unjust that Monsanto was profiting from the ruin of Bt, something he
regarded as a "public good."

None of this particularly surprised me; what did was that Heath himself
resorted to Bt sprays only once or twice in the last 10 years. I had
assumed that organic farmers used Bt or other approved pesticides in
much the same way conventional farmers use theirs, but as Heath showed
me around his farm, I began to understand that organic farming was a lot
more complicated than substituting good inputs for bad. Instead of
buying many inputs at all, Heath relied on long and complex crop
rotations to prevent a buildup of crop-specific pests -- he has found,
for example, that planting wheat after spuds "confuses" the potato
beetles.

He also plants strips of flowering crops on the margins of his potato
fields -- peas or alfalfa, usually -- to attract the beneficial insects
that eat beetle larvae and aphids. If there aren't enough beneficials to
do the job, he'll introduce ladybugs. Heath also grows eight varieties
of potatoes, on the theory that biodiversity in a field, as in the wild,
is the best defense against any imbalances in the system. A bad year
with one variety will probably be offset by a good year with the others.

"I can eat any potato in this field right now," he said, digging Yukon
Golds for me to take home. "Most farmers can't eat their spuds out of
the field. But you don't want to start talking about safe food in
Idaho."

Heath's were the antithesis of "clean" fields, and, frankly, their weedy
margins and overall patchiness made them much less pretty to look at.
Yet it was the very complexity of these fields -- the sheer diversity of
species, both in space and time -- that made them productive year after
year without many inputs. The system provided for most of its needs.

All told, Heath's annual inputs consisted of natural fertilizers
(compost and fish powder), ladybugs and a copper spray (for blight) -- a
few hundred dollars an acre. Of course, before you can compare Heath's
operation with a conventional farm, you've got to add in the extra labor
(lots of smaller crops means more work; organic fields must also be
cultivated for weeds) and time -- the typical organic rotation calls for
potatoes every fifth year, in contrast to every third on a conventional
farm. I asked Heath about his yields. To my astonishment, he was digging
between 300 and 400 bags per acre -- just as many as Danny Forsyth and
only slightly fewer than Steve Young. Heath was also getting almost
twice the price for his spuds: $8 a bag from an organic processor who
was shipping frozen french fries to Japan.

On the drive back to Boise, I thought about why Heath's farm
remained the exception, both in Idaho and elsewhere. Here was a
genuinely new paradigm that seemed to work. But while it's true that
organic agriculture is gaining ground (I met a big grower in Washington
who had just added several organic circles), few of the mainstream
farmers I met considered organic a "realistic" alternative. For one
thing, it's expensive to convert: organic certifiers require a field to
go without chemicals for three years before it can be called organic.
For another, the U.S.D.A., which sets the course of American
agriculture, has long been hostile to organic methods.

But I suspect the real reasons run deeper, and have more to do with the
fact that in a dozen ways a farm like Heath's simply doesn't conform to
the requirements of a corporate food chain. Heath's type of agriculture
doesn't leave much room for the Monsantos of this world: organic farmers
buy remarkably little -- some seed, a few tons of compost, maybe a few
gallons of ladybugs. That's because the organic farmer's focus is on a
process, rather than on products. Nor is that process readily
systematized, reduced to, say, a prescribed regime of sprayings like the
one Forsyth outlined for me -- regimes that are often designed by
companies selling chemicals.

Most of the intelligence and local knowledge needed to run Mike Heath's
farm resides in the head of Mike Heath. Growing potatoes conventionally
requires intelligence, too, but a large portion of it resides in
laboratories in distant places like St. Louis, where it is employed in
developing sophisticated chemical inputs. That sort of centralization of
agriculture is unlikely to be reversed, if only because there's so much
money in it; besides, it's much easier for the farmer to buy prepackaged
solutions from big companies. "Whose Head Is the Farmer Using? Whose
Head Is Using the Farmer?" goes the title of a Wendell Berry essay.

Organic farmers like Heath have also rejected what is perhaps the
cornerstone of industrial agriculture: the economies of scale that only
a monoculture can achieve. Monoculture -- growing vast fields of the
same crop year after year -- is probably the single most powerful
simplification of modern agriculture. But monoculture is poorly fitted
to the way nature seems to work. Very simply, a field of identical
plants will be exquisitely vulnerable to insects, weeds and disease.
Monoculture is at the root of virtually every problem that bedevils the
modern farmer, and that virtually every input has been designed to
solve.

To put the matter baldly, a farmer like Heath is working very hard to
adjust his fields and his crops to the nature of nature, while farmers
like Forsyth are working equally hard to adjust nature in their fields
to the requirement of monoculture and, beyond that, to the needs of the
industrial food chain. I remember asking Heath what he did about net
necrosis, the bane of Forsyth's existence. "That's only really a problem
with Russet Burbanks," he said. "So I plant other kinds." Forsyth can't
do that. He's part of a food chain -- at the far end of which stands a
long, perfectly golden McDonald's fry -- that demands he grow Russet
Burbanks and little else.

This is where biotechnology comes in, to the rescue of Forsyth's Russet
Burbanks and, if Monsanto is right, to the whole food chain of which
they form a part. Monoculture is in trouble -- the pesticides that make
it possible are rapidly being lost, either to resistance or to
heightened concerns about their danger. Biotechnology is the new silver
bullet that will save monoculture. But a new silver bullet is not a new
paradigm -- rather, it's something that will allow the old paradigm to
survive. That paradigm will always construe the problem in Forsyth's
fields as a Colorado potato beetle problem, rather than as a problem of
potato monoculture.

Like the silver bullets that preceded them -- the modern hybrids, the
pesticides and the chemical fertilizers -- the new biotech crops will
probably, as advertised, increase yields. But equally important, they
will also speed the process by which agriculture is being concentrated
in a shrinking number of corporate hands. If that process has advanced
more slowly in farming than in other sectors of the economy, it is only
because nature herself -- her complexity, diversity and sheer
intractability in the face of our best efforts at control -- has acted
as a check on it. But biotechnology promises to remedy this "problem,"
too.

Consider, for example, the seed, perhaps the ultimate "means of
production" in any agriculture. It is only in the last few decades that
farmers have begun buying their seed from big companies, and even today
many farmers still save some seed every fall to replant in the spring.
Brown-bagging, as it is called, allows farmers to select strains
particularly well adapted to their needs; since these seeds are often
traded, the practice advances the state of the genetic art -- indeed,
has given us most of our crop plants. Seeds by their very nature don't
lend themselves to commodification: they produce more of themselves ad
infinitum (with the exception of certain modern hybrids), and for that
reason the genetics of most major crop plants have traditionally been
regarded as a common heritage. In the case of the potato, the genetics
of most important varieties -- the Burbanks, the Superiors, the
Atlantics -- have always been in the public domain. Before Monsanto
released the New Leaf, there had never been a multinational seed
corporation in the potato-seed business -- there was no money in it.

Biotechnology changes all that. By adding a new gene or two to a Russet
Burbank or Superior, Monsanto can now patent the improved variety.
Legally, it has been possible to patent a plant for many years, but
biologically, these patents have been almost impossible to enforce.
Biotechnology partly solves that problem. A Monsanto agent can perform a
simple test in my garden and prove that my plants are the company's
intellectual property. The contract farmers sign with Monsanto allows
company representatives to perform such tests in their fields at will.
According to Progressive Farmer, a trade journal, Monsanto is using
informants and hiring Pinkertons to enforce its patent rights; it has
already brought legal action against hundreds of farmers for patent
infringement.

Soon the company may not have to go to the trouble. It is expected to
acquire the patent to a powerful new biotechnology called the
Terminator, which will, in effect, allow the company to enforce its
patents biologically. Developed by the U.S.D.A. in partnership with
Delta and Pine Land, a seed company in the process of being purchased by
Monsanto, the Terminator is a complex of genes that, theoretically, can
be spliced into any crop plant, where it will cause every seed produced
by that plant to be sterile. Once the Terminator becomes the industry
standard, control over the genetics of crop plants will complete its
move from the farmer's field to the seed company -- to which the farmer
will have no choice but to return year after year. The Terminator will
allow companies like Monsanto to privatize one of the last great commons
in nature -- the genetics of the crop plants that civilization has
developed over the past 10,000 years.

At lunch on his farm in Idaho, I had asked Steve Young what he thought
about all this, especially about the contract Monsanto made him sign. I
wondered how the American farmer, the putative heir to a long tradition
of agrarian independence, was adjusting to the idea of field men
snooping around his farm, and patented seed he couldn't replant. Young
said he had made his peace with corporate agriculture, and with
biotechnology in particular: "It's here to stay. It's necessary if we're
going to feed the world, and it's going to take us forward."

Then I asked him if he saw any downside to biotechnology, and he paused
for what seemed a very long time. What he then said silenced the table.
"There is a cost," he said. "It gives corporate America one more noose
around my neck."

Harvest

A few weeks after I returned home from Idaho, I dug my New Leafs,
harvesting a gorgeous-looking pile of white spuds, including some real
lunkers. The plants had performed brilliantly, though so had all my
other potatoes. The beetle problem never got serious, probably because
the diversity of species in my (otherwise organic) garden had attracted
enough beneficial insects to keep the beetles in check. By the time I
harvested my crop, the question of eating the New Leafs was moot.
Whatever I thought about the soundness of the process that had declared
these potatoes safe didn't matter. Not just because I'd already had a
few
bites of New Leaf potato salad at the Youngs but also because Monsanto
and the F.D.A. and the E.P.A. had long ago taken the decision of whether
or not to eat a biotech potato out of my -- out of all of our -- hands.
Chances are, I've eaten New Leafs already, at McDonald's or in a bag of
Frito-Lay chips, though without a label there can be no way of knowing
for sure.

So if I've probably eaten New Leafs already, why was it that I kept
putting off eating mine? Maybe because it was August, and there were so
many more-interesting fresh potatoes around -- fingerlings with dense,
luscious flesh, Yukon Golds that tasted as though they had been
pre-buttered -- that the idea of cooking with a bland commercial variety
like the Superior seemed beside the point.

There was this, too: I had called Margaret Mellon at the Union of
Concerned Scientists to ask her advice. Mellon is a molecular biologist
and lawyer and a leading critic of biotech agriculture. She couldn't
offer any hard scientific evidence that my New Leafs were unsafe, though
she emphasized how little we know about the effects of Bt in the human
diet. "That research simply hasn't been done," she said.

I pressed. Is there any reason I shouldn't eat these spuds?

"Let me turn that around. Why would you want to?"

It was a good question. So for a while I kept my New Leafs in a bag on
the porch. Then I took the bag with me on vacation, thinking maybe I'd
sample them there, but the bag came home untouched.

The bag sat on my porch till the other day, when I was invited to an
end-of-summer potluck supper at the town beach. Perfect. I signed up to
make a potato salad. I brought the bag into the kitchen and set a pot of
water on the stove. But before it boiled I was stricken by this thought:
I'd have to tell people at the picnic what they were eating. I'm sure
(well, almost sure) the potatoes are safe, but if the idea of eating
biotech food without knowing it bothered me, how could I possibly ask my
neighbors to? So I'd tell them about the New Leafs -- and then, no
doubt, lug home a big bowl of untouched potato salad. For surely there
would be other potato salads at the potluck and who, given the choice,
was ever going to opt for the bowl with the biotech spuds?

So there they sit, a bag of biotech spuds on my porch. I'm sure they're
absolutely fine. I pass the bag every day, thinking I really should try
one, but I'm beginning to think that what I like best about these
particular biotech potatoes -- what makes them different -- is that I
have this choice. And until I know more, I choose not.

Sunday, October 25, 1998
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 10:48:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28610;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:45:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:45:08 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b268f37737f7 [208.228.222.224]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:51:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Ordering the CRC Handbook
Resent-Message-ID: <"GqbHR.0.v-6.qEqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24209
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:17 AM 11/6/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>Hi;
>
>
>At 04:07 PM 11/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Go to a local UC or other bookstore.  Order the recent CRC in Physics and
>>Chemistry.  Look up all the answers you want and many more to boot.
>
>Thanks for the suggestion. I've been wanting to get more reference books.
>I'll look into this.
[snip]


If you want to save a lot of money and still get a new hardbound edition
you should order the "Student Edition".  The new ones are well over $100,
the student ones are about half price.  What makes it a Student Edition is
that it is a 2 years old edition.  Physics doesn't change all that much in
2 years.   I have a 1993-94 edititon, but also still use my 1945 edition (I
bought for a few bucks)  because it has info not in the present edition.
If you can find a used one somewhere that may be sufficient for starting
out.

I think I ordred mine from CRC Press at 800-727-7737 or McGraw Hill at 800
262-4729.  It has been a while, so I hope those numbers are current.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:09:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03278;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:06:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:06:56 -0800
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: <3643489F.305FA779 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:06:07 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Research Grants?
References: <1.5.4.32.19981106181956.00e43cf8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"du7BA.0.7p.FZqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24210
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> Well if the Art Foundation got rolling and projects were funded, one of the
> requirements maybe that the sculpture should be placed in Boston since we
> were a government funded community originally.

Location is non-critical.  I will go where the money leads.  
 
> Well a theory of what type of energy is accumulated and how this relates to
> people in the vicinity that experience the atmosphere the sculpture creates
> maybe something to consider. 

I have, but the answers are subjective, theoretical, and controversial.   I
sincerely doubt any amount of debate or speculation will change that.  I am
hesitant to open that Pandora's Box until there is hard data to chew on.  All I
can offer is that I do not foresee any negative environmental consequences or
risks to public health.

> Is there a difference between right handed and
> left handed turns? 

Yes.  One goes one way, the other goes the opposite way......  8^)   Watch the
sink drain and you will see which direction is important.....

> Could the elements be analysed by mass chord theory and
> optimized in size?

Yes.  I am attempting to do this now, but learning as I go.  

> I will keep you in mind if there is success with the Foundation.

I would appreciate that.  Thanks!


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:22:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08380;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:17:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:17:05 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106192338.00e4c614 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, 06 Nov 1998 14:23:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"IYP0L3.0.s22.miqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24211
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 12:14 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:

>What vortex characteristic are you attempting to observe?  The action is
>non-linear chaotic.  Just curious.


For some reason, I feel that it would look right if there were implosion
threshold vorticies spinning in each disk edge cavity. Whirling away to
dissociation, loading ZPE, and recombining to pump heat into the working
fluid. Water may have various charge capacities that could affect
efficiency. Current and/or vacuum related dissociation? A most favored
professor may have implied that magnetic based systems are more acceptable
by those who are knowledgable as such.


Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:23:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10633;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:22:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:22:04 -0800
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: <36434C4B.1ABE57EC css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:21:47 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Ordering the CRC Handbook
References: <v01530500b268f37737f7 [208.228.222.224]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"608E12.0._b2.SnqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24212
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> I think I ordred mine from CRC Press at 800-727-7737 or McGraw Hill at 800
> 262-4729.  It has been a while, so I hope those numbers are current.

79th edition at amazon is $129.95 (ISBN 0849304792)

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:26:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13542;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:25:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:25:30 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36434D18.70827BB0 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:25:12 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Pope visit protocols
References: <1.5.4.32.19981106192338.00e4c614 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7NEiP3.0.WJ3.fqqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24213
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> For some reason, I feel that it would look right if there were implosion
> threshold vorticies spinning in each disk edge cavity. Whirling away to
> dissociation, loading ZPE, and recombining to pump heat into the working
> fluid. 

I think Griggs has established that already..... 8^)






-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:31:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15041;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:28:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:28:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981106132715.00af2988 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:27:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b268f37737f7 [208.228.222.224]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PyeCe1.0.rg3.HtqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24214
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:51 11/6/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>....but also still use my 1945 edition (I
>bought for a few bucks)  because it has info not in the present edition.

For the same reason, I've started a collection.  I now have 1929, 1953,
1970, and 1989.  The 1929 one is the 14th edition and it is about half the
size of what I used to think was the little one (like your 1945 one).

Lots of them are for sale at www.abebooks.com, some real cheap.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 11:38:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15205;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:28:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:28:32 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b268f7612355 [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:34:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"nwhtg1.0.Qj3.WtqGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24215
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:14 AM 11/6/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>
>The expansion and contraction of the atom is spherically symmetrical.

This notion is not correct. The electron waveforms have very strange
shapes.  There is in fact a kind of QM cloud of orbitals for each electron
or electron pair in differing energy states.  Electron motion is described
in a probabilistic manner.  This is true for both monatomic and molecular
states.  In some cases, e.g. in extreme external magnetic fields, where low
ionizing potential Rydberg orbitals are feasible,  the orbitals can be
singular or planetary like in their outer portions, but these orbitals are
nothing even close to spherical or even circular.

There is at least one orbital visualization program available for
downloading from the web.  I have one called "Atom in a Box" by Dean Dauger
which is written for the Mac PowerPC.  One very striking thing about some
states is the high degree of electron flux in the vicinity of or through
the nucleus.  I think these states might increase the spontaneous decay
rates of unstable nuclei by adding some portion their about 0.5 MeV
electron kinetic energy while in the nuclear vicinity to the nucleus state.
If numerous electrons can be placed in high nuclear density orbital states
then the nucleus half life should be highly reduced, IMHO.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:07:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11250;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811062000.PAA15590 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:03:46 -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: <"RrreC1.0.hl2.gPrGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24216
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott Little wrote: 

>It's not a 3-phase motor is it?
>
No, both blower and rotor motors are single phase 220Vac, split phase.
 
> >4)  Measure Delta Temp. 
> 
> You need to sample air temps over a grid like the air flow measurements.
> Use the same grid and multiply respective pairs of temp and flow rate
> together.

This is an excellent plan, but a little difficult to implement.  Ralph is
talking about high COP (~1.57) right now.  He is working to get it higher
before he invites Jed.  I would settle for getting temperature readings in
multiple places in the airflow.  If COP is anything like that, a couple of
degrees variation across the cross-section will have little impact on
measurement accuracy.  Actually, the anemometer I sent has a thermometer
next to the impeller, so both readings could be done with that instrument. 
If you are interested in trying that, Jed, I'll send instructions.

I am using 4 thermocouples in the exhaust airflow on our Bow setup.  Around
1C is all the difference between thermocouples I record.
> 
> >It is conceivable that Ralph has taken delta temp without letting it
> >cool down to steady state.
> 
> VERY IMPORTANT POINT.  Take readings periodically and PLOT THEM AS YOU GO
> using pencil and graph paper. That way you can SEE clearly when things
have
> leveled off.

Yes, we must not rely on intuition.
> 
> I was gonna suggest measuring the humidity but I see that the specific
heat
> of air only varies by about 1 percent over the normal humidity range.
> 
> Good luck.

Thanks, Scott.


Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:06:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA30588;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:02:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:02:56 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b2690681b12f [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:09:11 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Cc: <VCockeram aol.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"uwgBR.0.sT7.jNrGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24217
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:19 AM 11/6/98, Craig Haynie wrote:
[snip]
>2) Because the phase of the signal was changing, one side with respect to
>the other, over time, about 1 cycle each minute, this indicated, without a
>doubt, that the source of the signal was crossing the field of vision, and
>from a rather close distance, unless the speed of light was being
>violated, and in ANY case, at an angular rate quick enough to guarantee
>that the signal wouldn't be in the field of vision for very long.
>
>3) Therefore, the reports that 4 people observed this signal over the
>course of the previous 2 weeks, could not possibly be correct. This signal
>was crossing the field of vision too quickly.


This conclusion is flase.  There are other possible explanations for a
phase change.  One explanation is an interference pattern from a multipoint
signal source.

>
>4) Therefore, the original reports were either in error, or more likely, a
>hoax.


Only quick and continued observation of the area, with combined optical
tracking, and consideration given to the possibility that the signal
frequency is changing with time, can determine with total certainty the
nature of the signals observed there.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:11:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01233;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:07:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:07:21 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:07:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199811062007.MAA15794 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: Red Shift
Resent-Message-ID: <"RFJ8q1.0.5J.uRrGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24218
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Ross Tessien wrote:
>> 
>
>This is one thing I wondered about actually... you've described the
>aether, i.e. space, to be like an ocean, or fluid.  And, aether is
>emitted from stars, and accelerates as it's emitted,  like smoke rising
>from an incense burner. I wonder about turbulence in the aether - it
>seems to me that you'd almost have to expect turbulence a certain
>distance from the sun, and how it is that we don't see the effects of
>that turbulence, given that it would have to accelerate and decelerate
>'particles' or whatever in a very nonlinear fashion.

why do you think we "don't" see the turbulence.  Haven't you read what I
have written?

We observe INERTIAL heating and velocity dispersions which are MASS
proportional.  Only gravity, or spacetime, couple to "MASS".  That heating
IS the turbulence.

The transition region is where we see it.  For more evidence extending
further out, read what I wrote about the earth's incessent free oscillations
with peak power at 5 minutes, matching the peak power of the solar oscillations.

The turbulence is everywhere you look.

But you have to look to notice it.  It is a small percentage of the total
solar gravitational potential.  The transition region is like water spilling
over a dam spill way.  It flows, accelerates, rams and becomes turbulent,
and a hydraulic jump ensues along with turbulence.  That is exactly what we
observe of ions crossing the coronal transition region.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:22:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08113;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:19:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:19:30 -0800
Message-ID: <36435ACE.3AC0 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:23:42 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms: CF debate , Storms 1993 paper 11.6.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"j01uI1.0.g-1.IdrGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24219
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Heffner: CF skepticism 11.4.98
  Date:  Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:45:41 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> Dick requires two conditions to exist before he will believe the claims:
> 1. Neutrons or other high-energy emissions must be produced at a level
> consistent with the claimed heat.  The agreed very low level of these
> emissions means to Dick that the excess heat can not caused by a nuclear
> reaction.
> 2. Heat must be made more often than not during all attempts.  The claim
> that most people use bad palladium, hence obtain negative results, is
> taken as a justification by believers for a selection process which
> stacks the deck in their favor .  This explanation is rejected and a
> statistical approach is repeatedly demanded.
>
> These requirements make any discussion very unproductive.
>
> Ed Storms

Every time Ed Storms reinterprets my remarks a subtle, but significant,
distortion gets introduced.  If you read my suggested requirements
as being absolute you can, perhaps, see what I have been saying as
too rigid and unbending to allow for anything new that might reveal
itself in ongoing investigations.  It has not been my intention to
offer absolute pronouncements, but rather to call to your attention
what is presently the well-established truths concerning nuclear
reaction physics.  It is not that no one can propose some new and
unexpected phenomenon, but rather that we should expect them to make
a strong case for their claims and to suggest a means for resolving
apparent conflicts within the entire data set.

It is not sufficient to just decree that Storms cold fusion is
not the same as Blue cold fusion.  One may as well suggest that
cold fusion in New Mexico or Utah is not the same as cold fusion
in Michigan or that cold fusion on Thursday is not the same
as cold fusion on Saturday.  Indeed it makes little sense to
suggest that cold fusion is not the same as luke warm fusion.
I don't think one can rationally compartmentalize nuclear reaction
phenomena in quite the way Ed Storms chooses to do.

So what I am suggesting is that if radiation measurements and
calorimetry are, as claimed, being applied to one specific system the
two forms of measurements must be reconciled.  You can't just walk away
from the radiation results because you don't like them.

Now if you are to hang your hat on the claims for excess heat and the
notion that the power levels are far too high for any chemical process,
then there is, it seems to me, a significant problem with the
thermodynamics before we even approach the question of possible nuclear
heat sources.  The problem that I see is that the energy scale for each
reaction event is, essentially by definition, now set above what is
typical for a chemical process in the realm where disruptions of
chemical bonds are to be expected. Yet there is no evidence for anything
unusual in that regard. Please explain.

Now one of the wonders of quantized systems is the familiar fact that
systems exist in discrete energy levels and that chemical or atomic
systems exist in an energy realm that is rather significantly removed in
energy from the levels typical of nuclear systems.  It's big MeV versus
little eV and the twain hardly ever meet.  As a result the step up in
energy scale from a chemical process to a nuclear process is seldom a
small one.  It certainly is not a small step when we are dealing with
the fusion of light nuclei.

However, when Ed Storms attempts his synthesis of CANR results he does
not hesitate to suggest that 4He is formed with the release of 23 MeV
per event, but that this huge energy release is no more significant than
what happens when he strikes a match.  What I have been saying is that
there are some things that may come unglued when 23 MeV is available
that might not ever come unglued when there is no such high energy
events.  That, in fact, is how one should decide whether or not high
energy events are occurring. You look for observables that are unique to
the class of events you wish to observe.  Is that unreasonable?

As I said before, the lack of radiation is a valid observation that
requires an explanation.  We get no explantion.  Many of the experiments
claiming excess heat can be explained by alternative hypotheses that are
as valid as something involving CANR.  In fact the data which Ed Storms
uses to make his case don't jell into a very consistant package even in
the absence of further consideration of the nuclear radiations which are
not present. The picture is not pretty.  There are clear hints that
something is wrong.

Dick Blue

Subject:  Ed Storms' own excess heat
  Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:23:27 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

I think I am prepare to launch a preliminary discussion of the
paper by Ed Storms.

"Measurements of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-Type
Electrolytic Cell using Palladium Sheet"  by Edmund Storms.
published in:  Fusion Technology vol 23 Mar 1993.

Rather than get bogged down in all the fine points (or
not so fine points) of calorimetry, I would prefer to start
with a sort of overview of the results and some aspects of
the data that happen to catch my eye.

The experiment involves isoperibolic calorimetry, a flat
plate paladium cathode, and closed operation with a
recombiner within the calorimeter.

First I want to note figures 9 and 10 which deal with
loading and phase change of the PdD cathode.  Loading
was accomplished at a current density of 0.02 A/cm^2
or a total current of 0.133 A.  Fig. 9 indicates that
the D/Pd ratio would have reached 0.8 in about 360
minutes of electrolysis had the process been 100%
efficient.  However, because not all deuterium is
absorbed by the palladium the process, loses efficiency
as electrolysis proceeds and the loading approaches
0.8 more assymptotically to level off at that value
after about 500 minutes.  An additional 300 minutes
of electrolysis does not result in any further increase
in loading.  I would say we see that full loading
is reached in about 10 hours of electrolysis when cell
current of 0.133 hours is employed, and assume that
higher currents would tend to shorten the loading time.

Fig. 10 gives reference voltage vs. D/Pd loading as
a monotonically rising curve with two clear breaks
in the slope, one associated with the onset of the
beta phase and one at the completion of the conversion
to beta phase.  The first break occurs at a cell
voltage of about 1.47 volts, the second at about
1.57 volts.  At full loading (0.8) the cell voltage
reaches about 1.75 volts.

I next consider Fig 12, a plot of "Excess Power
vs. time in hours -- the data for one sample
said to demonstrate the CANR effect.

The time scale extends from 220 hours to 340 hours.
I presume that the first 220 hours show nothing of
interest.  I find it significant that full loading
was presumably achieved in the first 10 hours of
electrolysis, but that nothing occurs for the next
210 hours.  Clearly full loading is not a sufficient
condition to trigger CANR even if it is neccessary.
I think that is a significant observation.

Fig 12 shows data for 6 different cell currents
ranging from 0.13 A to 2.8 A -- more than a factor
of 20 variation.  However, for currents in the
range 0.13 A to 2.0 A no effect is seen.

Of the six current values run only the single highest
value results in anything unusual.  Only when the
instrument is pushed to some sort of limiting condition
does the "effect" make its appearance.  I would suggest
that may be a bad sign.  I don't like experiments that
are run against the rail, so to speak.

Now the effect seen for 2.8 A cell current shows a
rather well defined time dependence that is hard to
ignore.  I would suggest that is also rather hard to
explain within the context of anything claimed for the
physics of the CANR process.

Starting at 240 hours the excess power rises linearly as
a funtion of time from zero at t = 240 hours to 6 watts
at t = 290 hours, a span of 50 hours.

When I see such a distinct functional dependence on a
seemingly insignificant experimenal parameter, I am
compelled to seek an explanation.  Why should the mere
passage of time have such a remarkable effect on the
claimed physical phenomenon?  Why should the CANR
mechanism care whether the clock reads 240 hours or
290 hours?

Clearly we need to look for some change in the controlling
parameters of the physical process being observed that has
a time dependence coupled to what we observe.

What about this system is changing in this time interval between
240 and 290 hours?  Can we not rule out several significant
parameters?  I would think the loading is not changing.  Clearly
the cell current is not changing.

The author does, however, provide a clue as to what about the
experiment is changing in precisely the time period where the
effect is seen with its remarkable time dependence.  The
t = 290 hour time is flagged with the notation: "Recombiner
Failure"

Now what I would toss out for further discussion is whether the
recombiner failure occurs instantaneously such that it would
effect only the end of the observed process or whether it might
actually occur over an extended period of time, say starting
at t = 240 hours and extending to t = 290 hours.

Is it not possible that the significant change in operating
parameters for the experiment that is demonstrated by Fig. 12
is a direct result of the acknowledged failure of the recombiner?

Thus we have a claim for a CANR positive which is based on a
singular result confined to a specific 50 hour interval from
a total of 300 hours of electrolysis and to a specific current
level of 2.8 A when all other data for other times and other
currents show no such effect.  Furthermore the singular
result is associated in time with an acknowledged equipment
failure.

Is not good!

Dick Blue

[Rich Murray: What was the recombiner, and what was its failure?  What
are the dimensions of the cell and electrodes, and the mass of the
electrolyte?  How might the failing recombiner generate a spurious
excess heat signal?  Were any analyses made for impurities in the cell
after the excess heat signal?  Was cell resistance continually
monitored?  A constant current supply will input variable power as the
voltage fluctuates to meet a varying resistance.]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:22:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08906;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:20:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:20:04 -0800
Message-ID: <004001be09c2$e400ddc0$a31a010a ar91037.argis.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:20:10 -0600
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 MAA08662
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kj7fh2.0._92.pdrGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24220
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hello Horace!

>>3) Therefore, the reports that 4 people observed this signal over the
>>course of the previous 2 weeks, could not possibly be correct. This signal
>>was crossing the field of vision too quickly.
>
>
>This conclusion is flase.  There are other possible explanations for a
>phase change.  One explanation is an interference pattern from a multipoint
>signal source.


My understanding is that the interference pattern is being generated by the difference in phase between signals received on one side of the array, and signals received on the other side of the array; and that this interference pattern is changing. If this

 is true, then a multi-point source of energy would not generate this sort of interference pattern. Two signals might change in phase, but both sides of the array would detect the same phase change, and the interference pattern would not change. Dr. Norri

s is saying that there is a difference in phase between one side of the array and the other, and that this phase difference is changing, one cycle per minute.

Right?

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 12:29:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA12050;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:26:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:26:13 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530505b2690b54d34e [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:32:30 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"aWy8m3.0.Cy2.bjrGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24221
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:59 AM 11/6/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>I will probably visit Ralph Pope next week. My purpose is to verify his
>measurements, not to take top-quality measurements myself. Ed Wall has our
>power recording meter, I will use instantaneous meters. I criticize Newman for
>using instantaneous meters, however in previous tests in our lab we determined
>that the power does not vary by much, approximately 2%. This will suffice as a
>first approximation.

The most likely conventional explanation for "excess energy" from the pope
device IMHO is oxidation of the rotor.  For this reason it seems necessary
to weigh the rotor assembly prior to the runs, fully dried, and then weigh
the same assembly, fully dried, after the run.  It may also be useful to
filter the entire water supply (and flushing water) after the run to obtain
the particulates, and to take a sample of the water for chemical analysis.
An aluminum rotor operating a high temperautees can form aluminum hydroxide
and aluminum oxide.  Corrosion of the rotor was noted in earlier tests as
testimony to the high temps involved.  It may also be testimony to the
source of the energy observed being chemical in nature.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:06:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26105;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:04:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:04:47 -0800
Message-Id: <199811062103.QAA29099 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:06:06 -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: <"JFrhn.0.pN6.jHsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24223
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

> The most likely conventional explanation for "excess energy" from the
pope
> device IMHO is oxidation of the rotor.  For this reason it seems
necessary
> to weigh the rotor assembly prior to the runs, fully dried, and then
weigh
> the same assembly, fully dried, after the run.  It may also be useful to
> filter the entire water supply (and flushing water) after the run to
obtain
> the particulates, and to take a sample of the water for chemical
analysis.
> An aluminum rotor operating a high temperautees can form aluminum
hydroxide
> and aluminum oxide.  Corrosion of the rotor was noted in earlier tests as
> testimony to the high temps involved.  It may also be testimony to the
> source of the energy observed being chemical in nature.

I have examined rotors that ran for many hours and did not see evidence of
much corrosion.  We did see some really odd pits (very few of them) on the
side of one brand new rotor that we ran for only a few hours.  We took an
electronmicrograph of it and I showed it to Dr. John Dash, who was visiting
for the conference.  I thought it looked like melting and he agreed.  Why
this would occur nowhere near the nozzles is just plain wierd.  We saw no
melting on the rotor orifices.

The chemical explanation is always a consideration, however, neither the
erratic nature of the reported COP's nor their extremity is explained by
it.  If we do see prolonged high COP, we will be closely examining the
water and rotor.  So far, however, this only seems to occur in Georgia.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:07:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25749;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:04:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:04:11 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b2690cf6ddfc [12.72.128.71]>
In-Reply-To: <199811060711.BAA22651 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:59:42 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SETI Institute "Refutation" of "Paul Dore's" Alleged SETI Hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pdfJ31.0.2I6.9HsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24222
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

Mitchell, believe what you want to about the reason for the Dore hoax, but
the information from that source is highly suspect to say the least. That's
because by definition a hoax *consists* of lies. You might want to
speculate that there are some truths sandwiched in there somewhere if you
like. That is pure speculation on your part. It is not reliable data upon
which to construct theories of decelerating alien probes, government
coverups, etc.

So you don't trust the 'establishment' spin on this. Fine. Do you trust
actual un-hoaxed experimental evidence then? See Craig Haynie's post "Re:
Another Message from ATNF" for an explanation of *real* data that refutes
the premises behind these speculations spawned from this cheap little
internet hoax.

By the way, I listened to Art Bell Wednesday night. He had Richard Hoaglund
as a guest, and Richard shares your view of a cover up conspiracy.
Unfortunately, it was all based on the same highly disreputable data, and,
as it must, also ignored important details of the data that does come from
reliable sources.

This is like taking the principles of scientific inquiry and inverting
them. Trust rumor and hoax, throw out real experimental data, and speculate
wildly on the results. I don't like it one bit. There is lots of good
evidence for some of the mysterious things seen on the "fringe"; CF or even
UFOs among them. But these mysteries will eventually yield to scientific
inquiry if people don't just give up on the method because there's
resistance to new paradigms. Groundless speculative excursions like yours
and Hoaglund's add nothing of value to the understanding these mysteries.
On the contrary, they tend to discredit the actual scientific efforts
people are making to find the truth behind them.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28134;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:09:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:09:24 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106211605.00e3ab68 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, 06 Nov 1998 16:16:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook
Resent-Message-ID: <"UYmFb1.0.St6.3MsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24224
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:21 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>> I think I ordred mine from CRC Press at 800-727-7737 or McGraw Hill at 800
>> 262-4729.  It has been a while, so I hope those numbers are current.
>
>79th edition at amazon is $129.95 (ISBN 0849304792)

Hmm. I'm going to have to think about this for now. I was thinking of:

"Arktos" - Earth axis tilt theory and history - 16.95
"Field Effect" - Pi phase physics -             11.95
"Man Made UFO's 1944 - 1994"                    16.95
"The Free Energy Device Handbook"               16.95
"The Atlantis Researches" - Pole tilt theory    22.95
"Aquarian Gospel of J.C." - Missing 18 years    14.95

Decisions... decisions...


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:15:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29322;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:12:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:12:08 -0800
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: <3643661C.B093690E css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 15:11:56 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Pope visit protocols
References: <199811062103.QAA29099 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5r1wF.0.4A7.eOsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> I have examined rotors that ran for many hours and did not see evidence of
> much corrosion.  We did see some really odd pits (very few of them) on the
> side of one brand new rotor that we ran for only a few hours.  We took an
> electronmicrograph of it and I showed it to Dr. John Dash, who was visiting
> for the conference.  I thought it looked like melting and he agreed.  Why
> this would occur nowhere near the nozzles is just plain wierd.  We saw no
> melting on the rotor orifices.

Any similarity to Edward Lewis's plasmoid photographs from CF cells?
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946/ELEWIS8.html>


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:16:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28825;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:11:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:11:10 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106211759.00e4f444 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, 06 Nov 1998 16:17:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook
Resent-Message-ID: <"UVqvv3.0.J27.jNsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:27 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:

>For the same reason, I've started a collection.  I now have 1929, 1953,
>1970, and 1989.  The 1929 one is the 14th edition and it is about half the
>size of what I used to think was the little one (like your 1945 one).

There wouldn't be a change in the way dissociation energy is defined over
time I wonder.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:44:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05247;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:38:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:38:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106214538.00e48fd4 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, 06 Nov 1998 16:45:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Final suggestion
Resent-Message-ID: <"MGUMZ3.0.vH1.bnsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24227
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:34 AM 11/6/98 -0900, you wrote:
>At 12:14 AM 11/6/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>The expansion and contraction of the atom is spherically symmetrical.
>
>This notion is not correct. The electron waveforms have very strange
>shapes.  There is in fact a kind of QM cloud of orbitals for each electron
>or electron pair in differing energy states.  Electron motion is described
>in a probabilistic manner.  This is true for both monatomic and molecular
>states.  In some cases, e.g. in extreme external magnetic fields, where low
>ionizing potential Rydberg orbitals are feasible,  the orbitals can be
>singular or planetary like in their outer portions, but these orbitals are
>nothing even close to spherical or even circular.

Spherical symmetry can expand or contract with varied surface topology
remaining intact.

>There is at least one orbital visualization program available for
>downloading from the web.  I have one called "Atom in a Box" by Dean Dauger
>which is written for the Mac PowerPC.  One very striking thing about some
>states is the high degree of electron flux in the vicinity of or through
>the nucleus.  I think these states might increase the spontaneous decay
>rates of unstable nuclei by adding some portion their about 0.5 MeV
>electron kinetic energy while in the nuclear vicinity to the nucleus state.
>If numerous electrons can be placed in high nuclear density orbital states
>then the nucleus half life should be highly reduced, IMHO.


The monatomic high spin state is supposedly football shaped. I saw a webpage
that described more complex shapes as the superconducting monatomic state.
Mainstream physics does recognize microclusters as having unusual
properties. The Wateroz water soluble minerals (magnesium, zinc, silver)
just arrived. The minerals are somehow made water soluble. I suspect that
there maybe monatomic properties in the water. A most honored professor may
have mentioned similar properties for rare earths.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:50:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08116;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:44:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:44:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811062143.QAA07299 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:46:47 -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: <"zXyyA2.0.e-1.ItsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

No, the site resembles no plasmoid activity.  It looks a bit like
photographs of the surface of palladium that have had subsurface melting
erupting into a flower emerging above the surface.  Downstream (rotational)
from this site is evidence of heat--brief liquification of the aluminum,
with some color distortion.

John Steck wrote:

> Any similarity to Edward Lewis's plasmoid photographs from CF cells?
> <http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946/ELEWIS8.html>
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:51:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08174;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:44:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:44:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981106164745.007cfa40 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:47:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"AU6NA2.0.Z_1.LtsGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


   At 10:59 11/6/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>It is conceivable that Ralph has taken delta temp without letting it
>cool down to steady state.

Scott Little: "VERY IMPORTANT POINT.  Take readings periodically and PLOT
THEM AS YOU GO
using pencil and graph paper. That way you can SEE clearly when things have
leveled off.  I was gonna suggest measuring the humidity but I see that the
specific heat
of air only varies by about 1 percent over the normal humidity range.
Good luck."


  If you obtain a cooling curve, then long initial baseline,
and a control pulse, you can better demonstrate it is in the steady state
and that the equation used is valid in the experimental setting.

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 13:55:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08423;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:45:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:45:37 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106215220.00e47c00 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, 06 Nov 1998 16:52:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"ypKVG1.0.X32.1usGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 01:25 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>> For some reason, I feel that it would look right if there were implosion
>> threshold vorticies spinning in each disk edge cavity. Whirling away to
>> dissociation, loading ZPE, and recombining to pump heat into the working
>> fluid. 
>
>I think Griggs has established that already..... 8^)

I'm not sure if he put it in exactly these terms. Does Griggs subscribe to
atomic potential as being dissociation energy?


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 14:29:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02709;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:25:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:25:39 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106223246.00e47d28 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, 06 Nov 1998 17:32:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"JQgvq1.0.Fg.YTtGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 11:32 AM 11/6/98 -0900, you wrote:

>
>The most likely conventional explanation for "excess energy" from the pope
>device IMHO is oxidation of the rotor.  For this reason it seems necessary
>to weigh the rotor assembly prior to the runs, fully dried, and then weigh
>the same assembly, fully dried, after the run.  It may also be useful to
>filter the entire water supply (and flushing water) after the run to obtain
>the particulates, and to take a sample of the water for chemical analysis.
>An aluminum rotor operating a high temperautees can form aluminum hydroxide
>and aluminum oxide.  Corrosion of the rotor was noted in earlier tests as
>testimony to the high temps involved.  It may also be testimony to the
>source of the energy observed being chemical in nature.

Sounds like Brown's gas reaction? The thing is to keep the vortex imploding
only within the peripheral disk chambers. The Law of the Square might apply
here. If it's Brown's gas oxidation, even a tungsten disk wouldn't do any
better.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 14:30:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04000;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:28:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:28:34 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36437800.B980D98C css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:28:16 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Pope visit protocols
References: <1.5.4.32.19981106215220.00e47c00 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"tebyz.0.M-.IWtGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> I'm not sure if he put it in exactly these terms. Does Griggs subscribe to
> atomic potential as being dissociation energy?

Take a look at his patents and you tell me... 8^)
  http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05188090__
  http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05385298__

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 14:32:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04652;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:29:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:29:47 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3643784D.C896A2EF css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:29:33 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Pope visit protocols
References: <199811062143.QAA07299 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RCasr.0.b81.QXtGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> No, the site resembles no plasmoid activity.  It looks a bit like
> photographs of the surface of palladium that have had subsurface melting
> erupting into a flower emerging above the surface.  Downstream (rotational)
> from this site is evidence of heat--brief liquification of the aluminum,
> with some color distortion.

Probably not, but did you take any micro-photographs?  If not, any chance it's
not too late?

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:11:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21758;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:08:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:08:21 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106231502.00e648e4 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, 06 Nov 1998 18:15:02 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate , Storms 1993 paper 11.6.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"KLAKt1.0.uJ5.b5uGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 01:23 PM 11/6/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:


>Every time Ed Storms reinterprets my remarks a subtle, but significant,
>distortion gets introduced.  If you read my suggested requirements
>as being absolute you can, perhaps, see what I have been saying as
>too rigid and unbending to allow for anything new that might reveal
>itself in ongoing investigations.  It has not been my intention to
>offer absolute pronouncements, but rather to call to your attention
>what is presently the well-established truths concerning nuclear
>reaction physics.  It is not that no one can propose some new and
>unexpected phenomenon, but rather that we should expect them to make
>a strong case for their claims and to suggest a means for resolving
>apparent conflicts within the entire data set.

Well I suggest David Hudson's monatomic palladium theory as the source of
unexpected particles and elements. In theory, hydrogen loads into palladium
and causes monatomic palladium to fracture off. The monatomic palladium is a
superconductor and gets magnetically charged by the electrolysis current.
When critical superconductor magnetic field is surpassed, the field on the
monatomic palladium collapses. Because monatomic palladium can easily
transmutate, some of the atoms break up and produce the observed anomolous
particles.

I think the energy is from hydrogen dissociating and recombining as the
palladium loads and unloads. The difficulty is in establishing what the
dissociation energy is. The only definition reference in words that I have
found suggests that the atomic hydrogen potential energy is De. I think.

>
>It is not sufficient to just decree that Storms cold fusion is
>not the same as Blue cold fusion.  One may as well suggest that
>cold fusion in New Mexico or Utah is not the same as cold fusion
>in Michigan or that cold fusion on Thursday is not the same
>as cold fusion on Saturday.  Indeed it makes little sense to
>suggest that cold fusion is not the same as luke warm fusion.
>I don't think one can rationally compartmentalize nuclear reaction
>phenomena in quite the way Ed Storms chooses to do.

If the ZPE pumping cycle of hydrogen dissociation and recombination is the
source of the energy, could ZPE environment characteristics vary with region?

>So what I am suggesting is that if radiation measurements and
>calorimetry are, as claimed, being applied to one specific system the
>two forms of measurements must be reconciled.  You can't just walk away
>from the radiation results because you don't like them.
>
>Now if you are to hang your hat on the claims for excess heat and the
>notion that the power levels are far too high for any chemical process,
>then there is, it seems to me, a significant problem with the
>thermodynamics before we even approach the question of possible nuclear
>heat sources.  The problem that I see is that the energy scale for each
>reaction event is, essentially by definition, now set above what is
>typical for a chemical process in the realm where disruptions of
>chemical bonds are to be expected. Yet there is no evidence for anything
>unusual in that regard. Please explain.

What do you think of this?

Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418


"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy

The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."



>Fig. 10 gives reference voltage vs. D/Pd loading as
>a monotonically rising curve with two clear breaks
>in the slope, one associated with the onset of the
>beta phase and one at the completion of the conversion
>to beta phase.  The first break occurs at a cell
>voltage of about 1.47 volts, the second at about
>1.57 volts.  At full loading (0.8) the cell voltage
>reaches about 1.75 volts.

These voltage levels sounds like Brown's gas parameters. 


>I next consider Fig 12, a plot of "Excess Power
>vs. time in hours -- the data for one sample
>said to demonstrate the CANR effect.
>
>The time scale extends from 220 hours to 340 hours.
>I presume that the first 220 hours show nothing of
>interest.  I find it significant that full loading
>was presumably achieved in the first 10 hours of
>electrolysis, but that nothing occurs for the next
>210 hours.  Clearly full loading is not a sufficient
>condition to trigger CANR even if it is neccessary.
>I think that is a significant observation.

The electrolysis current is left on the whole time? The monatomic palladium
is charging to critical superconducting magnetic field. As the
superconducting field collapses, the monatomic palladium breaks up uniformly
within the electrode thus freeing atomic hydrogen at a rate which will allow
recombination thus pumping ZPE out as excess heat. The monatomic palladium
must reach critical magnetic field in order to rupture the electrode lattice
continuously and free enough atomic hydrogen to sustain recombination energy
excess. I think this is it!

>Fig 12 shows data for 6 different cell currents
>ranging from 0.13 A to 2.8 A -- more than a factor
>of 20 variation.  However, for currents in the
>range 0.13 A to 2.0 A no effect is seen.
>
>Of the six current values run only the single highest
>value results in anything unusual.  Only when the
>instrument is pushed to some sort of limiting condition
>does the "effect" make its appearance.  I would suggest
>that may be a bad sign.  I don't like experiments that
>are run against the rail, so to speak.
>
>Now the effect seen for 2.8 A cell current shows a
>rather well defined time dependence that is hard to
>ignore.  I would suggest that is also rather hard to
>explain within the context of anything claimed for the
>physics of the CANR process.
>
>Starting at 240 hours the excess power rises linearly as
>a funtion of time from zero at t = 240 hours to 6 watts
>at t = 290 hours, a span of 50 hours.
>
>When I see such a distinct functional dependence on a
>seemingly insignificant experimenal parameter, I am
>compelled to seek an explanation.  Why should the mere
>passage of time have such a remarkable effect on the
>claimed physical phenomenon?  Why should the CANR
>mechanism care whether the clock reads 240 hours or
>290 hours?
>
>Clearly we need to look for some change in the controlling
>parameters of the physical process being observed that has
>a time dependence coupled to what we observe.

Does a white material form and exude from the electrode when it's working right?

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:17:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA26285;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:15:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:15:43 -0800
Message-Id: <199811062314.SAA24508 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:20:57 -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: <"i28Uo.0.VQ6.UCuGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



> 
>   If you obtain a cooling curve, then long initial baseline,
> and a control pulse, you can better demonstrate it is in the steady state
> and that the equation used is valid in the experimental setting.
> 
>     Mitchell Swartz

The testing that Jed is planning to be doing for us is just preliminary and
to verify Ralph Pope's claim of high COP.  You are, of course, correct
about using a control pulse to verify the cooling curve.  I constructed a
220 V joule heater, controlled with an autotransformer, that fits into the
Kinetic Furnace that I have used for calibration in Bow.  The calibration
looks very good.

Ed Wall
NERL
 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:18:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20935;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:06:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:06:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:06:34 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: SETI/Dore discussion on Laura Lee AM radio
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981106150019.9548A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"35UZR.0.z65.64uGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Saturday 11/6 evening show has Michael Theroux, Nathan Cohen, Seth Shostak
discussing "SETI and EQ Pegasi: Reality vs. Fantasy".   See below (down a
ways)

The Laura Lee AM talkshow is distributed nationally in the US, check out
the website for possible nearby stations.  Topics are weird science & new
age, usually author interviews.

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




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:46:45 -0800
From: webmaster lauralee.com
To: billb eskimo.com
Subject: Laura Lee Show E-News - October 7, 1998


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOT SHOW THIS WEEK!
Here is your WEEKLY E-NEWS from THE LAURA LEE SHOW and www.lauralee.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laura Lee E-News is sent by subscription only. If you wish to unsubscribe 
go to: http://www.lauralee.com/cfdocs/laura/mailinglist/enduse.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello. Hope you had a great week! Thanks for subscribing to Laura Lee E-News.
Following this weeks listing is an additional listing for our 
NEW weekday internet only show.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
RADIO SHOW GUEST/TOPIC LINE UP - Saturday, November 7, 1998
By Laura Lee

Zecharia Sitchin
One of the most popular researchers on the Ancient Astronaut Theory, Sitchin 
shares lastest findings. Newest Book:  The Cosmic Code : Book Six of the Earth 
Chronicles" Zecharia Sitchin is one of a small number of orientalists who can 
read ancient Sumerican clay tablets. After a writing career as a journalist, 
he began writing his "Earth Chronicles" series of books, which to date have 
been translated in fourteen languages from their English originals. 
http://www.lauralee.com/sitchin.htm

Erich von Ddniken
Erich von Ddniken is the one who fist widely popularized the Ancient Astronaut 
theory. Beginning with "Chariots of the Gods," his many titles have been 
translated into 28 languages, and have sold over 55 million copies.  His newest 
book: "Arrival of the Gods: Revealing the Alien Landing Sites of Nazca." His
books have been translated into 28 languages, and have sold in almost 56 
million copies throughout the world. http://www.aas-ra.org/evd/

Vaughn Greene
Vaughn Greene, extraterrestrial researcher, analyzes 6,000 year-old Dogu 
statuettes found in Japan, and finds over 30 points of similarity with modern 
space suits. Details on these ancient statuettes look similar to the lenses, 
rivets, belts, quick release pins, earphones and rubber cuffs found on suits 
worn by NASA's astronauts. We'll also look at the Japanese legends, Shinto 
mythology, and ancient folklore which infer visits by extraterrestrials.

Michael Theroux, Nathan Cohen, Seth Shostak
SETI and EQ Pegasi: Reality vs. Fantasy
SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, has taken a new twist. 
Has ET finally phoned home? We'll examine the claims that anonymous astronomers 
have detected a signal from deep space. Or is what they picked up coming from a 
spy satellite closer to home? Or could the whole thing be a hoax, and why? What 
are SETI dishes around the world picking up? Who is Mr. Paul Dore? On what band 
are the claimed signals? How do you separate out a real ET signal from a false 
alarm? What is the protocol  when ET does phone Earth? How does the community of 
SETI researchers regard the claimed detection? Three SETI researchers will answer 
these questions, and yours. Our panel includes: Nathan Cohen, with Project DIPR 
(which devises theoretical SETI simulations) will dissect the claimed signal.  
Seth Shostak with the SETI Institute presents an eight-point analysis of the 
claim of detection, and Michael Theroux, Director of Borderlands Science Foundation, 
has a chronological unfoldment of the story, and research on an early, alternative 
SETI project. http://www.borderlands.com/

THIS WEEK'S POLL:
Do you believe life on Earth was seeded from outerspace?

TO VOTE go to: http://www.lauralee.com/poll.cfm

After voting give us your feedback on the Laura Lee Bulletin Board:
http://www.lauralee.com/bulletin.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GUESTS & TOPICS - NEW WEEKDAY INTERNET ONLY SHOW  Scheduled to Appear 
(New Show Info at http://www.lauralee.com/talkspot.htm) 

Thursday, November 5, 1998 - NEW Internet only show
JOIN US AT http://www.lauralee.com/talkspot.htm

Gwynne Spencer
Dreamwork: Working with dreams means remembering and exploring the dreams from 
sleep with an eye to their deeper meanings. Each one of us is uniquely blind to the 
deeper meanings of our own dreams, and Dream Work helps us see what amazing gifts 
are there.

Dan Werthimer
More on SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence via detections of ET 
transmissions from deep space.  It's not just radio waves, but laser waves as well 
they are looking for.  Dan Werthimer talks the technicals, and ponders, what will 
we do when ET phones?

Dr. Melvin Morse
Dr. Melvin Morse reports on the Near Death Experience, especially those of 
children. Says Dr. Morse, "by studying the neuroscience of the Near Death 
Experience, we learn that human beings have an unused area of the brain which is 
responsible for spiritual intuitions, paranormal abilities such as telepathy and 
remote viewing, and the power to heal not only the soul, but the body as well."

Friday, November 6, 1998 - - NEW Internet only show
JOIN US AT http://www.lauralee.com/talkspot.htm

Roger Williard
Ever wonder about the life of a private investigator?  How do they find 
missing people?  How do people disappear?  Roger Willard is a PI. 
For over 21 years he has been hunting people for criminal and civil cases. 
Learn how he does it. Author of "Missing Persons, USA: How to Hunt Down 
and Find Anyone, Anywhere".

Michael Murphy
What do golf and human potential have in common?  Plenty, says Michael 
Murphy, who gave us the classic tale of sport and mysticism, "Golf in the 
Kingdom". The rules of the inner game, not only of golf, but of growth and 
transformation.

To join us and FOR INFORMATION on the internet only show Laura Lee Online:
go to http://www.lauralee.com/talkspot.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOLLOW.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE LAURA LEE SHOW WEBSITE:
http://www.lauralee.com/index.cfm

REAL AUDIO ARCHIVES:
Posted in full by Sunday Noon Pacific for the previous nights show. Now
formatted in REAL AUDIO. The Audio Archives will remain
on our website indefinitely. http://www.lauralee.com/archives.htm

AUDIO CASSETTES:
Should you need an audio tape of same to send to a friend, or to listen to 
when you are not at your computer, call 1-800-243-1438. Tapes are edited of 
commercial and news breaks, are often on 90 minute cassettes, and only $7 
each. More info at:  http://www.lauralee.com/cassette.htm
 
LIVE WEBCAST:
If you cannot get radio reception, try the webcast during live show hours.
To join the webcast, click the AUDIO button on our homepage,
and follow directions from there.
Or go direct:  http://www.lauralee.com/aud_live.htm

BULLETIN BOARD SECTION for YOUR REACTION TO GUESTS:
We named it "And the Conversation Continues"
This new feature is a bulletin board segmented by date, then guest,
to gather your musings and reactions to the various guest and their research.
Offer as well as read the musings of others, including Laura Lee.
http://www.lauralee.com/bulletin.htm

LIVE  RADIO SHOW HOURS: 
Saturday  7 PM to Sunday 2 AM Pacific
Saturday  8 PM to Sunday 3 AM Mountain
Saturday  9 PM to Sunday 4 AM Central
Saturday 10 PM to Sunday 5 AM Eastern

RADIO STATION LIST:
For a complete list of stations carrying the Laura Lee Show, 
click on the TIMES & STATIONS button. Please note that not every station 
takes all of our show hours. And if your local station does not, you can 
always direct an email message or postcard to the Program Director, requesting 
that he/she add the missing hours of our show to their lineup. 
That simple gesture can work wonders!
http://www.lauralee.com/stations.htm

WEEKLY BOOK GIVEAWAY: 
Books, videos and audio tapes are given away from a random drawing of entries. 
To enter, go to:  http://www.lauralee.com/contest.htm

SEE SOME INTERESTING PHOTOS
Weve got "must-see" photos of Chinas pyramids, and Japans 
underwater stone mysteries. View photos at: http://www.lauralee.com/mystery.htm
And a few personal photos of Paul, Laura Lee, and dog Chance at:
http://www.lauralee.com/photoalb.htm

LAST MINUTE CHANGES OFTEN OCCUR:
The list above of posted guests/topics represent what is scheduled when 
this is sent. Last minute and often unavoidable changes can occur. When 
a scheduled guest  is unable to join us, well include a rescheduled 
time/date in the next email message to you. We apologize for any inconvenience.

TO SUBSCRIBE:
 If you wish receive these weekly updates, and you are not already on our list
(perhaps someone kindly forwarded this message to you) simply 
return this message with "subscribe" as the subject, and we 
will add you to our email list.  Or go direct to
http://www.lauralee.com/cfdocs/laura/mailinglist/enduse.cfm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
If you receive this message without subscribing, it means that someone 
else has entered you for subscription. If you wish discontinue receiving these 
updates, simply return this message with "unsubscribe" as the subject, and we 
will take you off our email list.  Or go direct to
http://www.lauralee.com/cfdocs/laura/mailinglist/enduse.cfm

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
We appreciate it! Please tell your friends and colleagues around the world
about our website, the radio show, and our audio archives to which they can
listen at any time.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:26:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29233;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:21:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:21:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199811062320.SAA25393 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:23:33 -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: <"4lHj02.0.h87.NIuGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



> Ed Wall wrote:
> > No, the site resembles no plasmoid activity.  It looks a bit like
> > photographs of the surface of palladium that have had subsurface
melting
> > erupting into a flower emerging above the surface.  Downstream
(rotational)
> > from this site is evidence of heat--brief liquification of the
aluminum,
> > with some color distortion.

What color electrons were they?  I mean the shades of grey form a ring
around the larger site area.  It is strange.
> 
> Probably not, but did you take any micro-photographs?  If not, any chance
it's
> not too late?
> 
I'm sorry to say I lost track of that disk (actually, we needed it to run),
but the electronmicrograph is in my log book.


Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:49:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08048;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:47:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:47:36 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106235433.00e51a84 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, 06 Nov 1998 18:54:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"PS8ZJ2.0.cz1.NguGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:06 PM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:

>I have examined rotors that ran for many hours and did not see evidence of
>much corrosion.  We did see some really odd pits (very few of them) on the
>side of one brand new rotor that we ran for only a few hours.  We took an
>electronmicrograph of it and I showed it to Dr. John Dash, who was visiting
>for the conference.  I thought it looked like melting and he agreed.  Why
>this would occur nowhere near the nozzles is just plain wierd.  We saw no
>melting on the rotor orifices.

For some reason, a vacuum implosion vortex occured there dissociating water
to Brown's gas which went into the metal and recombined releasing ZPE thus
forming the oxide pits.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 15:54:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11084;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:52:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:52:30 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981106235948.00e58a74 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, 06 Nov 1998 18:59:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"gzASk1.0.6j2.zkuGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:46 PM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>No, the site resembles no plasmoid activity.  It looks a bit like
>photographs of the surface of palladium that have had subsurface melting
>erupting into a flower emerging above the surface.  Downstream (rotational)
>from this site is evidence of heat--brief liquification of the aluminum,
>with some color distortion.
>
>John Steck wrote:
>
>> Any similarity to Edward Lewis's plasmoid photographs from CF cells?
>> <http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946/ELEWIS8.html>

The plasmoid could be composed of Brown's gas which may permeate into the metal.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 16:09:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA17994;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:07:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:07:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981106191035.007f04e0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 19:10:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
In-Reply-To: <199811062314.SAA24508 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8VcYR2.0.4P4.LzuGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24240
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  A cooling curve is separate from the control pulse, however.
The former yields effective mass and time constants, the other
will demonstrate quite a bit more.
  Good job with the joule heater.  How many watts?
  
    Mitchell Swartz

At 05:20 PM 11/6/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:
>
>
>> 
>>   If you obtain a cooling curve, then long initial baseline,
>> and a control pulse, you can better demonstrate it is in the steady state
>> and that the equation used is valid in the experimental setting.
>> 
>>     Mitchell Swartz
>
>The testing that Jed is planning to be doing for us is just preliminary and
>to verify Ralph Pope's claim of high COP.  You are, of course, correct
>about using a control pulse to verify the cooling curve.  I constructed a
>220 V joule heater, controlled with an autotransformer, that fits into the
>Kinetic Furnace that I have used for calibration in Bow.  The calibration
>looks very good.
>
>Ed Wall
>NERL
> 
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 16:18:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21894;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:16:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:16:03 -0800
Message-Id: <199811070014.TAA03831 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:18:04 -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: <"yne6P1.0._L5.25vGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24241
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> 
>   A cooling curve is separate from the control pulse, however.
> The former yields effective mass and time constants, the other
> will demonstrate quite a bit more.
>   Good job with the joule heater.  How many watts?
>   
I improvised a boost transformer to get the voltage high enough to get
2890W.  The KF consumes around 3150, so the arrow straight calibration line
of delta-temp vs. power-in can give accurate efficiency ratio given that
the thermocouples do not change position between the null (Joule) runs and
the rotor runs.  The heater stays in place, so the airflow does not change,
either.  It has good repeatability for the calibration.

It has been too long since I cracked a book on control theory.  Care to
elaborate on what else can be gained from a control pulse?

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 16:48:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00639;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:44:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:44:56 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:40:56 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811061944_MC2-5F60-CA2A compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"j9O7S1.0.q9.8WvGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24242
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little writes:

     VERY IMPORTANT POINT.  Take readings periodically and PLOT THEM AS YOU
     GO using pencil and graph paper. That way you can SEE clearly when
     things have leveled off.

A pencil and what?!? Say, maybe I should shoot a turkey and use a quill, or
bring clay and record in cuneiform . . .  I'll type the readings directly into
the spreadsheet and graph on the fly. In point of fact, this is not an issue.
It is easy to spot the cooling off period, which takes around 15 minutes max.
Today Pope ran for an hour and 40 minutes. There was a slight warming trend at
the end because of changes in ambient temperature.

The COP was improved today, closer to 1.8 or 2.0 as I recall, with 3.3 kW
input. I do not have the exact numbers because I wrote them on a piece of
paper and left it on my desk. So much for paper! The main computer was out of
action because I was upgrading to Win 98, which is a trip, I must say. I do
not see how ordinary folks cope with it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 17:51:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA07600;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981107013642.00e41a60 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, 06 Nov 1998 20:36:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"-0CRS3.0.gs1.cCwGs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24243
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:28 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>> I'm not sure if he put it in exactly these terms. Does Griggs subscribe to
>> atomic potential as being dissociation energy?
>
>Take a look at his patents and you tell me... 8^)
>  http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05188090__
>  http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05385298__

The first patent says it creates a tortuous pathway to maximize shock waves
and water hammer. Sounds like cavitation dissociation. Same with second
patent. The holes in the rotor are only to produce uncontrolled shock waves
and water hammer effects to initiate cavitation dissociation where ever.

First, a material must be found that will not disintergrate when exposed to
Brown's gas. Then the rotor and housing must be designed so that the
Reynolds number is below turbulant phase at all areas except the disk
perimeter cavities. The fluid flow might be directed into these cavities
(which is lined with Brown's gas resistant material) so vacuum implosion
vortex manifests within the disk cavities continuously.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 18:07:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29858;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:05:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:05:53 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530506b26919120dd7 [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:12:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"2Onuf3.0.NI7.0iwGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24244
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:20 PM 11/6/98, Craig Haynie wrote:
[snip]
>My understanding is that the interference pattern is being generated by
>the difference in phase between signals received on one side of the array,
>and signals received on the other side of the array; and that this
>interference pattern is changing. If this is true, then a multi-point
>source of energy would not generate this sort of interference pattern. Two
>signals might change in phase, but both sides of the array would detect
>the same phase change, and the interference pattern would not change.

See sample calculations below for counter example.

>Dr. Norris is saying that there is a difference in phase between one side
>of the array and the other, and that this phase difference is changing,
>one cycle per minute.
>
>Right?

Yes. Also note that Dr. Norris states that the meaning of this is only that
the telescope is not pointed directly at the source, not that the radio
source is moving with respect to the background sky, if I understand what
he is saying:

At 6:40 PM 11/4/98, John Winterflood wrote that Dr Norris wrote:
[snip]
>>Well, first the antennas are changing the position to track one point in
>>the sky. Second, the electronics are also chnaging the phase of the signals
>>in one arm of the interferometer, so that the correlated phase of an object
>>at the phase centre (i.e. EQ Peg) is constant. I.e. the path length of the
>>signal down the two arms of the interferometer is adjusted electrically so
>>that the difference in path length is zero for an object at the phase centre.
>>
>>A source some way away from the phase centre will have the wrong phase,
>>because the two path lengths are different. A source 1 arcmin away
>>(~=0.2m/350m) would chnage its phase by a maximum of 1 turn in 24 h
>>(actually the maximum *rate* is four turns per 24 h). A source ten degrees
>>away will have a max phase rate 10*60*4 turns per 24h = 1.7 turns/min

This seems to imply that the viewed source, if not moving with repect to
the background sky, was 17 degrees away from the phase center.  I don't
understand how this is possible.  The field of view is not that large.
Any clarification  anyone?

Note that the inteferometer adjusts the phase difference to make it appear
the baseline is broadside to the targeted coordinate.

The freq. observed by the ATCA was 1451.8 MHz. This corresponds to a
0.20649 m wavelength.  There were baselines ranging from 350m to 6km. See
www.atnf.csiro.au for details.  We were assuming a 350 m baseline.

Let's assume for a bit that the two broadcast points have the same
separation as the interferometer baseline, and their connecting line is
parallel to the interferometer (arteficial) baseline, so for the two
objects, with the telescopes pointed at their mid point,  we have
approximately the following geometry with D = B:


Object 1           Object 2
  o - - - - - - - - -o
  |\       D        /|
  |w\              / |
  |  \            /  |
  |   \          /   |
  |    \        /    |
  |     \ H    /     |
  |      \    /      |
  |       \  /       |
  | h      \/        |
  |        /\        |
  |       /  \       |
  |      /    \      |
  |     /      \     |
  |    /        \    |
  |   /          \   |
  |  /            \  |
  | /              \ |
  |/       B        \|
  o - - - - - - - - -o
Dish 1             Dish 2


We could have said objects 1 and 2 rotate about each other, laterally
moving, or broadcasting in various repetitive ways, modifying amplitude or
frequency.

The phase shift observed from Object 1is proportional to H - h. Let w
(omega) indicate the angle shown. We have:

   B = H sin(w)                           (1)

But since w is near zero we can approximate with w = sin(w) so:

   B = H w                                 (2)

We also have:

   h^2 + B^2 = H^2                               (3)

Subs (2) into (3):

   h^2 + H^2 w^2 = H^2                            (4)

   h^2 = H^2 (1 - w^2)                            (5)

   h = H (1 - w^2)^0.5                            (6)


But looking at the difference and subs. (6):

   H - h = H - H (1 - w^2)^0.5                 (7)

   d = H (1 - (1 - w^2)^0.5)                   (8)

If we want to make the phase shift one wavelength then:

   d = 0.20649 m                   (8)

and knowing from (2)

   w = B/H = (350 m)/H                   (9)

We substitute into (8):

   0.20649 m = H (1 - (1 - ((350 m)/H)^2)^0.5)                   (10)

And we solve to get

   H = 2.97x10^5 m   = 297 km               (11)

So, in our assumed example, the phase shift could occur once per minute by
changing the apparent location of the object from Object 1 to Object 2 and
back.

Another means would be to have an appx. 350 m object at about 300 km
altitude rotate once a minute with an antenna on the perimeter.  Or, a 3500
m object at 3000 km altitude should work.  The situation gets more complex
if you add linear motion.  I suppose you could do away with the two point
assumption all together, and go wtih straight linear motion.  This would
imply 3.5 km/s at a 3000 km altitude, for example.  We have by proportions

   v/r = 1.167x10^-3 (km/s)/(km alt.)              (12)

Say, that means we have a corresponding orbit, because, if M is the mass of
the earth, G the gravitational constant:

   v = (G M/r)^0.5              (13)

   v^2 = G M/r                   (14)

multiplying by v:

   v^3 = G M v/r                  (15)

Subs:

   v^3 = (6.67 x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2) (6.0x10^24 kg) (1.167x10^-3 (m/s)/(m alt.)

   v = 7759 m/s                  (17)

But from (14):

   7759 m/s = (6.67 x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2) (6.0x10^24 kg) / r         (18)

So:

   r = 5.15x10^10 m = 51.6 million km        (19)

Ooops - if the assumpions hold this is probaby not an earth orbit item.

I hope I got all that right.  It is just meant to be an example. We would
need a lot more data to make any meaning out of it all.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 20:50:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17617;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 20:46:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 20:46:42 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2697eb3ef8c [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:52:38 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"cPCEI1.0.1J4.m2zGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24246
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:06 PM 11/6/98, Ed Wall wrote:
[snip]
>
>I have examined rotors that ran for many hours and did not see evidence of
>much corrosion.  We did see some really odd pits (very few of them) on the
>side of one brand new rotor that we ran for only a few hours.  We took an
>electronmicrograph of it and I showed it to Dr. John Dash, who was visiting
>for the conference.  I thought it looked like melting and he agreed.  Why
>this would occur nowhere near the nozzles is just plain wierd.  We saw no
>melting on the rotor orifices.
>
>The chemical explanation is always a consideration, however, neither the
>erratic nature of the reported COP's nor their extremity is explained by
>it.  If we do see prolonged high COP, we will be closely examining the
>water and rotor.  So far, however, this only seems to occur in Georgia.
>
>Ed Wall
>NERL

Yes, if you are getting no excess heat there is no need to look for the
source.  Still might be worth while to weigh the rotor assembly before the
calorimetry, as you can not go back and do it after the fact without
starting over.

The heat of combustion for Al is 399,000 cal/g mole, or 7200,00 BTU/lb
mole.   With atomic weight of 26.98154 the energy is 14,800 cal/g. You
don't have to burn much to get "excess heat."

The cavitation intiated corrosion should occur in reduced pressure areas,
and also not tend to be in laminar flow areas.

Good luch with your test.  Maybe the excess energy is related to all that
iron in the GA water.   Beware water softeners.   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 21:43:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA31531;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:41:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:41:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981107134308.00ab85b0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 13:43:08 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
In-Reply-To: <v01530506b26919120dd7 [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8tk9v.0.Zi7.hrzGs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24247
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since Bill Beaty himself contributed to this subject recently, I
guess that makes it on topic for vortex!

At 17:12 6/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>(big snip)
>Yes. Also note that Dr. Norris states that the meaning of this is only that
>the telescope is not pointed directly at the source, not that the radio
>source is moving with respect to the background sky, if I understand what
>he is saying:

Yes that is correct.  We (I at least) are not certain at this point
whether the object generating the carrier had proper motion with
respect to EQ Pegasi, or whether the phase turning was due to the
earths rotation coupled with some angular offset from EQ Pegasi.

I am sure there is enough data presented to determine it, but
since seeing clear evidence of deception on the part of the
anonymous web master and the person who borrowed Paul Dore's
identity, I have lost interest in investigating it since it is
almost certainly just some old satellite.  It is hard enough
making allowance for peoples mistakes and ignorance, but making
allowance for deliberate deception is impossible.

Given the raw data of phase vs time that has been plotted, I
think I could work out how much of the apparent motion is due
to the earths rotation, and how much is due to proper motion
against the fixed star background.  However have not the
enthusiasm to regenerate the data from the plot, and I do not
want to bother Dr Norris for it.

The plot of signal strength vs time is probably also sufficient
to determine proper motion.  But we would need to know more
about the antenna sensitivity lobes etc.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 22:06:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA04573;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:04:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:04:12 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981107061124.00e86fd0 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: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 01:11:24 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CF opinion
Resent-Message-ID: <"SFEkR.0.J71.RB-Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24248
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I find cold fusion research a stimulating intellectual pursuit. After some
reflection, I feel the work on related hydroxy reactions will have some
useful applications. Should a global catastrophy occur, hydroxy research may
prove essential for the design of power supplies crucial to basic survival.
The more I think about it, the more I appreciate Searl's technology. One has
a more complete sort of basic control in a Searl Effect Generator design.
Magnetic field energy mechanically interlacing to create energy flow rather
than a chemical reaction energy principal chamoflaged with monatomic
superconducting magnetic field saturated palladium collapse and
transmutation to nuclear particles and unexpected element production. Two
disonant processes that combine in a bizzare way to create energy with
hazardous byproducts.

I visualize atomic hydrogen dissociating from the molecule, forcing its' way
down every available intersticial site, jamming itself until it get's in at
the expense of cracking and breaking palladium atoms out of its' lattice.
Jamming in, cracking and breaking more and more. Steadily, magnetic field
fills the monatomic palladium superconductor all the way up to full and then
some. All the while, atomic hydrogen is jamming, cracking, breaking, more
and more, in, in, in some more! The monatomic palladium atoms, first
violently ripped out of its lattice position, then filled with magnetic
field, more and more and more than it possibly wants or can bear. Finally,
the palladium atoms can be stuffed no more and they explode into filthy
little bits causing a lattice breakdown avalanche releasing atomic hydrogen
to recombine producing heat in a violent, dirty, illgotten manner. Rape -
vomit - slutty orgasm!

The idea of it kind of scares me. You don't want the byproducts around. The
heat generation is difficult to start and control. The materials are very
expensive.

If I could some how understand the proper way to go about designing with
Professor Searl's Law Of The Square, I think things will be much better off
in the long run. Professor Searl has the wisdom, experience, and patience to
know what directions are safe. His leadership as such makes much more sense
than us yahoos playing with hydrogen energy bundles willy nilly trial and
error. Professor Searl has been down the proper research path before and he
knows the right way!


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 22:36:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA11054;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:35:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:35:26 -0800
Message-ID: <364510A1.C894138B ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 19:31:46 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: WARNING!
References: <502e957d.3643b2c6 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CP8us.0.ai2.je-Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24249
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Don't be so stupid, Don't perpetuate Hoaxes.

VCockeram aol.com wrote:

> This came to me this morning over the company intranet as an official warning
> so I will pass it on here.
> Vince
> Las Vegas Nevada
>
> > >  Subject:  WARNING!
> >  >
> >  > WARNING!
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It
> >  >
> >  > will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to
> >  >
> >  > as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and
> >  >
> >  > not many people know about it. This information was announced
> >  >
> >  > Monday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this
> >  >
> >  > along to everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Rick Bryan
> >  > Exxon Company U.S.A.
> >  > Supply Operations
> >  > Phone: (713) 656-4899
> >  > Fax:    (713) 656-5550
> >  > richard.w.bryan exxon.com
> >  >
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:54:22 -0500
> From: Vinny Cockeram <vbcocker us.ibm.com>
> To: <VCOCKERAM AOL.COM>
>
>                      Regards,   Vince
> internet connected:    VBCOCKER US.IBM.COM
>                                           VCOCKERAM AOL.COM
> Account  CE  Branch  1JM  Territory  N01
> Las Vegas, Nevada
>
> Carol Fleeger
> 11/04/98 11:58
>
> To: PSC D18 CEs, Mary Hayes/Denver/IBM IBMUS
> cc:
> From: Carol Fleeger/Boulder/IBM IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Carol Fleeger/Boulder/IBM on 11/04/98
> 01:01
> PM ---------------------------
>
> Don G Oest
> 11/04/98 08:12 AM
> To: PSC DM, Dept, PSC APOC18/Boulder/IBM IBMUS
> cc: Ron L Santos/Boulder/IBM IBMUS, Paul Hinrichs/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
> From: Don G Oest/Boulder/IBM IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> F.Y.I.!  Important, please read!
>
> __________________________________
> Don
> District Manager - Availability Services   Phone #:   303-924-6002
> IBM Printing Systems Company  Notes ID: DGOEST
> Boulder, Colorado ...Internet:dgoest us.ibm.com
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Don G Oest/Boulder/IBM on 11/04/98 08:10
> AM
> ---------------------------
>
> Cathy Oest
> 11/04/98 06:50 AM
> To: Mary Kay Morgan/Fort Lauderdale/IBM IBMUS, Robert J Cassara/Sterling
> Forest/IBM IBMUS, Randy Thompson/Gaithersburg/IBM@IBMUS@IBMUS
> cc:  (bcc: Don G Oest/Boulder/IBM)
> From: Cathy Oest/Boulder/IBM IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> F.Y.I.
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Cathy Oest/Boulder/IBM on 11/04/98 03:29
> AM
> ---------------------------
>
> Bob Hoag
> 11/03/98 04:35 PM
> To: Don DeMarco/Somers/IBM IBMUS, Don's, Patrick Corcoran/Sterling Forest/IBM,
> Jack Buyarski/Dallas/IBM IBMUS, Ron Martin/Denver/IBM@IBMUS, Cindy
> Majka/Endicott/IBM IBMUS, Joyce Castronovo/Sterling Forest/IBM@IBMUS, Cathy
> Oest/Boulder/IBM IBMUS, Marianne Belock/Sterling Forest/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:
> From: Bob Hoag/Poughkeepsie/IBM local
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> F.Y.I.
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Bob Hoag/Poughkeepsie/IBM on 11/03/98
> 06:34
> PM ---------------------------
>
>  Robert Lanspery
>  11/02/98 07:25 AM
>
> To: Bob Voss/Sterling Forest/IBM IBMUS, Bob Hoag/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
> Patrick Corcoran/Sterling Forest/IBM IBMUS, Kenneth A Morrison/Sterling
> Forest/Contr/IBM IBMUS, Mary Beth Henderson/Sterling Forest/IBM@IBMUS,
> Francine
> Jaroszewski/Sterling Forest/IBM IBMUS, Kathy Gurda-Smith/Sterling
> Forest/IBM IBMUS
> cc:
> From: Robert Lanspery/Somers/IBM   IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> FYI..........
>
> Regards,
> Bob Lanspery
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Lanspery/Somers/IBM on 11/02/98
> 07:23 AM ---------------------------
>
> Gino Cannavaro
> 11/01/98 02:39 PM
> To: Richard Nardi/Southbury/IBM IBMUS, Howard A Spina/Southbury/IBM@IBMUS,
> Leonard E Sammon/Southbury/IBM IBMUS, Maria Niederhofer/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
> Robert Lanspery/Somers/IBM IBMUS, Dave Gallelli/Southbury/IBM@IBMUS, William
> Slater/Sterling Forest/IBM IBMUS, Joanne L Ebbern/Sterling Forest/IBM@IBMUS,
> Fred Eldridge/Sterling Forest/IBM IBMUS, Phil Livingston/Sterling
> Forest/IBM IBMUS, Guy Colson/Southbury/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:
> From: Gino Cannavaro/Somers/IBM   IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> FYI.
>
> Gino
> Asset Strategy and Operations    (914) 766-4772
> Somers  NY                                   T/L   826-4772
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Gino Cannavaro/Somers/IBM on 11/01/98
> 02:32
> PM ---------------------------
>
> William Lanigan
> 11/01/98 08:36 AM
> To: daniel_99lanigan usmma.edu@internet, Gino Cannavaro/Somers/IBM@IBMUS,
> Rocco
> Morabito/Southbury/IBM IBMUS, James Yarter/Somers/IBM
> cc:
> From: William Lanigan/Poughkeepsie/IBM IBMUS
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Lanigan
> Contracts Advisor, IBM Global Customer Solutions Procurement
> IBM Corporation
> 522 South Road Mail Drop P102
> Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-5400
> Internet: LANIGAN US.IBM.COM
> Office: (914) 433-2590/(t/l) 293-2590
> Pager: (800) 759-8888 PIN 1905205
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by William Lanigan/Poughkeepsie/IBM on
> 11/01/98 08:35 AM ---------------------------
>
> John Gisiano
> 10/30/98 05:06 PM
> Sent by: Joan Powers
> To: Gisiano Staff, Henning Group, McVey Group, Johnson Group, Ned Doelling/St
> Louis/IBM IBMUS, Karen Brewer/St Louis/IBM@IBMUS, Brewer Group, Lena Martin/St
> Louis/IBM IBMUS, Diane Skiver/St Louis/IBM@IBMUS, JoAnn Krietemeyer/St
> Louis/IBM IBMUS, Cindy Ferguson/St Louis/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:
> From: John Gisiano
> Subject: Re: FW: WARNING!
>
> Hi, Joan here . . . for your information, in case you haven't seen this  . . .
>
> Please see note below regarding a nasty virus.
>
> ******************************************************************************
> **********************
>
> >
> > ----------
> >  Subject:  WARNING!
> >
> > WARNING!
> >
> >
> > If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It
> >
> > will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to
> >
> > as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and
> >
> > not many people know about it. This information was announced
> >
> > Monday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this
> >
> > along to everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped.
> >
> >
> > Rick Bryan
> > Exxon Company U.S.A.
> > Supply Operations
> > Phone: (713) 656-4899
> > Fax:    (713) 656-5550
> > richard.w.bryan exxon.com
> >

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 22:48:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA13220;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:46:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:46:20 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811070646.WAA03284 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: ddameron earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: dave dameron <ddameron earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook- speed of light.
Resent-Message-ID: <"d7TLh1.0.UE3.xo-Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24250
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Scott and all,
At 01:27 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 09:51 11/6/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>....but also still use my 1945 edition (I
>>bought for a few bucks)  because it has info not in the present edition.
>
>For the same reason, I've started a collection.  I now have 1929, 1953,
>1970, and 1989.  The 1929 one is the 14th edition and it is about half the
>size of what I used to think was the little one (like your 1945 one).
>
Could you please check the older volumes to see if the measured speed of light
is getting more precise or actually changing?
-Dave

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 22:57:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA16288;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:54:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:54:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3643EFB3.17BD earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 23:58:59 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue: Murray: CF debate, 1993 Storms report  11.6.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SStDh2.0.Q-3.qw-Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24251
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate, Storms 1993 report 11.6.98
      Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 17:54:18 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Heffner: CF skepticism 11.4.98
>   Date:  Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:45:41 -0500 (EST)
>   From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> > Dick requires two conditions to exist before he will believe the claims:
> > 1. Neutrons or other high-energy emissions must be produced at a level
> > consistent with the claimed heat.  The agreed very low level of these
> > emissions means to Dick that the excess heat can not caused by a nuclear
> > reaction.
> > 2. Heat must be made more often than not during all attempts.  The claim
> > that most people use bad palladium, hence obtain negative results, is
> > taken as a justification by believers for a selection process which
> > stacks the deck in their favor .  This explanation is rejected and a
> > statistical approach is repeatedly demanded.
> >
> > These requirements make any discussion very unproductive.
> >

> 
> Every time Ed Storms reinterprets my remarks a subtle, but significant,
> distortion gets introduced.  If you read my suggested requirements
> as being absolute you can, perhaps, see what I have been saying as
> too rigid and unbending to allow for anything new that might reveal
> itself in ongoing investigations.  It has not been my intention to
> offer absolute pronouncements, but rather to call to your attention
> what is presently the well-established truths concerning nuclear
> reaction physics.  It is not that no one can propose some new and
> unexpected phenomenon, but rather that we should expect them to make
> a strong case for their claims and to suggest a means for resolving
> apparent conflicts within the entire data set.

Fair enough, I will take what appear to me to be pronouncements as just
your style of debate. As for a strong case, this is, to some extent, in
the mind of the beholder.  As for resolving conflicts, this is where we
need your help.  We all agree that conflicts are present.  We now need
some original thinking and perhaps a benefit-of-doubt to find a new way
of approaching the problem. Just rejecting data is not good enough any
more.

> It is not sufficient to just decree that Storms cold fusion is
> not the same as Blue cold fusion.  One may as well suggest that
> cold fusion in New Mexico or Utah is not the same as cold fusion
> in Michigan or that cold fusion on Thursday is not the same
> as cold fusion on Saturday.  Indeed it makes little sense to
> suggest that cold fusion is not the same as luke warm fusion.
> I don't think one can rationally compartmentalize nuclear reaction
> phenomena in quite the way Ed Storms chooses to do.

Perhaps, but that sounds like a pronouncement to me.  Why not explore
the possibility that fusion or any other nuclear reaction might be
influenced by certain chemical environments.  The question then becomes,
"what form would these environments need to have to produce the claimed
behavior"?  Can we play a what-if game?

> So what I am suggesting is that if radiation measurements and
> calorimetry are, as claimed, being applied to one specific system the
> two forms of measurements must be reconciled.  You can't just walk away
> from the radiation results because you don't like them.

No, I do not walk away.  I accept what nature is telling me.  There is
very little radiation and nothing I can do will change this fact. Does
this mean that nuclear reactions are not occurring, as you would
conclude, or does it mean that the nature of the nuclear reactions has
been changed by the environment? Is this question not worthy of
exploration?  By exploration, I mean can you try to find a path between
the conventional, which doesn't work, to a new position that might work.
We need some ideas that can be tested. 
 
> Now if you are to hang your hat on the claims for excess heat and the
> notion that the power levels are far too high for any chemical process,
> then there is, it seems to me, a significant problem with the
> thermodynamics before we even approach the question of possible nuclear
> heat sources.  The problem that I see is that the energy scale for each
> reaction event is, essentially by definition, now set above what is
> typical for a chemical process in the realm where disruptions of
> chemical bonds are to be expected. Yet there is no evidence for anything
> unusual in that regard. Please explain.

If the energy were released all at once or were focused on a few
chemical bonds, then we should see broken bonds and radiation.  These
are not seen. Do we then conclude that nuclear reactions are not
occurring or do we explore the possibility that the energy is created
gradually by some unconventional process?  This process would be
normally invisible in a plasma or in normal matter.

> Now one of the wonders of quantized systems is the familiar fact that
> systems exist in discrete energy levels and that chemical or atomic
> systems exist in an energy realm that is rather significantly removed in
> energy from the levels typical of nuclear systems.  It's big MeV versus
> little eV and the twain hardly ever meet.  As a result the step up in
> energy scale from a chemical process to a nuclear process is seldom a
> small one.  It certainly is not a small step when we are dealing with
> the fusion of light nuclei.

Absolutely true and one of the reasons conventional thinking can not be
applied.

> However, when Ed Storms attempts his synthesis of CANR results he does
> not hesitate to suggest that 4He is formed with the release of 23 MeV
> per event, but that this huge energy release is no more significant than
> what happens when he strikes a match.  What I have been saying is that
> there are some things that may come unglued when 23 MeV is available
> that might not ever come unglued when there is no such high energy
> events.  That, in fact, is how one should decide whether or not high
> energy events are occurring. You look for observables that are unique to
> the class of events you wish to observe.  Is that unreasonable?

No, that is very reasonable. But, having looked and found no unique
events, what then?  On the other hand, some unique events are actually
seen but they are not consistent with past experience.  A few neutrons
are emitted as are occasional gamma rays.  Tritium is produced.
Radioactivity and helium are produced where there was none before. 
Granted some of these events are not consistent with energy production,
but they are unusual and need to be explained.  Or do we attribute all
these measurement to error?

> As I said before, the lack of radiation is a valid observation that
> requires an explanation.  We get no explantion.  Many of the experiments
> claiming excess heat can be explained by alternative hypotheses that are
> as valid as something involving CANR.  In fact the data which Ed Storms
> uses to make his case don't jell into a very consistant package even in
> the absence of further consideration of the nuclear radiations which are
> not present. The picture is not pretty.  There are clear hints that
> something is wrong.

Of course something is wrong. But is it all explainable by a wide
variety of errors being made by many researchers or is it that
conventional theory is deficient?

> Dick Blue
> 
> Subject:  Ed Storms' own excess heat
>   Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:23:27 -0500 (EST)
>   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> I think I am prepare to launch a preliminary discussion of the
> paper by Ed Storms.
> 
> "Measurements of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-Type
> Electrolytic Cell using Palladium Sheet"  by Edmund Storms.
> published in:  Fusion Technology vol 23 Mar 1993.
> 
> Rather than get bogged down in all the fine points (or
> not so fine points) of calorimetry, I would prefer to start
> with a sort of overview of the results and some aspects of
> the data that happen to catch my eye.
> 
> The experiment involves isoperibolic calorimetry, a flat
> plate paladium cathode, and closed operation with a
> recombiner within the calorimeter.
> 
> First I want to note figures 9 and 10 which deal with
> loading and phase change of the PdD cathode.  Loading
> was accomplished at a current density of 0.02 A/cm^2
> or a total current of 0.133 A.  Fig. 9 indicates that
> the D/Pd ratio would have reached 0.8 in about 360
> minutes of electrolysis had the process been 100%
> efficient.  However, because not all deuterium is
> absorbed by the palladium the process, loses efficiency
> as electrolysis proceeds and the loading approaches
> 0.8 more assymptotically to level off at that value
> after about 500 minutes.  An additional 300 minutes
> of electrolysis does not result in any further increase
> in loading.  I would say we see that full loading
> is reached in about 10 hours of electrolysis when cell
> current of 0.133 hours is employed, and assume that
> higher currents would tend to shorten the loading time.

True

> Fig. 10 gives reference voltage vs. D/Pd loading as
> a monotonically rising curve with two clear breaks
> in the slope, one associated with the onset of the
> beta phase and one at the completion of the conversion
> to beta phase.  The first break occurs at a cell
> voltage of about 1.47 volts, the second at about
> 1.57 volts.  At full loading (0.8) the cell voltage
> reaches about 1.75 volts.

No, the voltage is not the cell voltage but the voltage between the
cathode and a piece of platinum within the cell, measured while the
current is turned off briefly, the open-circuit-voltage.
 
> I next consider Fig 12, a plot of "Excess Power
> vs. time in hours -- the data for one sample
> said to demonstrate the CANR effect.
> 
> The time scale extends from 220 hours to 340 hours.
> I presume that the first 220 hours show nothing of
> interest. 

See Fig 11 for the time between 80 and 160 hr and Table 3 for the
conditions from 0 to the end of the study.

> I find it significant that full loading
> was presumably achieved in the first 10 hours of
> electrolysis, but that nothing occurs for the next
> 210 hours.  Clearly full loading is not a sufficient
> condition to trigger CANR even if it is neccessary.
> I think that is a significant observation.

Yes this is significant.  The explanation now known from later work is
that the surface composition continues to increase even though the
average bulk composition seems to remain constant. McKubre sees this
effect more easily using the resistivity of small samples than I can
using large samples and trying to detect small changes in internal
pressure. Nevertheless, I can track the changing surface composition
using the open-circuit-voltage as explained in one of the papers I sent
you.
 
> Fig 12 shows data for 6 different cell currents
> ranging from 0.13 A to 2.8 A -- more than a factor
> of 20 variation.  However, for currents in the
> range 0.13 A to 2.0 A no effect is seen.
> 
> Of the six current values run only the single highest
> value results in anything unusual.  Only when the
> instrument is pushed to some sort of limiting condition
> does the "effect" make its appearance.  I would suggest
> that may be a bad sign.  I don't like experiments that
> are run against the rail, so to speak.

I agree, this effect is something I do not like to see either. However,
later work shows that a critical current is required to reach the
critical surface composition.  In this case, this current appears to be
2.8A. Other samples show a different current.
 
> Now the effect seen for 2.8 A cell current shows a
> rather well defined time dependence that is hard to
> ignore.  I would suggest that is also rather hard to
> explain within the context of anything claimed for the
> physics of the CANR process.
> 
> Starting at 240 hours the excess power rises linearly as
> a funtion of time from zero at t = 240 hours to 6 watts
> at t = 290 hours, a span of 50 hours.
> 
> When I see such a distinct functional dependence on a
> seemingly insignificant experimenal parameter, I am
> compelled to seek an explanation.  Why should the mere
> passage of time have such a remarkable effect on the
> claimed physical phenomenon?  Why should the CANR
> mechanism care whether the clock reads 240 hours or
> 290 hours?

As time goes on, the nature of the palladium changes.  Impurities,
including lithium and platinum, plate on to and diffuse into the
surface.  Grain boundaries move and the surface texture changes.  These
changes will affect the composition at the surface and are part of the
process known to cause the surface composition to increase.  I propose
that these processes cause an increasing fraction of the surface to
acquire the critical composition.

> Clearly we need to look for some change in the controlling
> parameters of the physical process being observed that has
> a time dependence coupled to what we observe.
> 
> What about this system is changing in this time interval between
> 240 and 290 hours?  Can we not rule out several significant
> parameters?  I would think the loading is not changing.  Clearly
> the cell current is not changing.
> 
> The author does, however, provide a clue as to what about the
> experiment is changing in precisely the time period where the
> effect is seen with its remarkable time dependence.  The
> t = 290 hour time is flagged with the notation: "Recombiner
> Failure"
> 
> Now what I would toss out for further discussion is whether the
> recombiner failure occurs instantaneously such that it would
> effect only the end of the observed process or whether it might
> actually occur over an extended period of time, say starting
> at t = 240 hours and extending to t = 290 hours.

No, the recombiner did not begin to fail earlier.  The temperature of a
recombiner located outside of the cell was measured. A temperature
increase is seen when uncombined D2 and O2 leave the cell. No
temperature change was seen before the indicated time. This can be seen
in Fig. 13.
 
> Is it not possible that the significant change in operating
> parameters for the experiment that is demonstrated by Fig. 12
> is a direct result of the acknowledged failure of the recombiner?

No, as indicated above.

> Thus we have a claim for a CANR positive which is based on a
> singular result confined to a specific 50 hour interval from
> a total of 300 hours of electrolysis and to a specific current
> level of 2.8 A when all other data for other times and other
> currents show no such effect.  Furthermore the singular
> result is associated in time with an acknowledged equipment
> failure.

No, this is not the only indication of excess energy.  Please note Fig.
11 and Fig. 16.  Both of these occasions were made using fresh
recombiner and Fig. 16 shows the behavior after the bad recombiner was
changed. In addition, you should note that the cell was calibrated by
producing joule heat using an internal heater.  No change in calibration
was observed during the study.  I might also point out that a similar
sample, which did not load well, produced no excess heat and a third
sample, not noted in the paper, loaded ok and produced about 2 watts of
power.

> Is not good!

Yes, if you leave out information. What about after my comments?

> 
> [Rich Murray: What was the recombiner, and what was its failure?  What
> are the dimensions of the cell and electrodes, and the mass of the
> electrolyte?  How might the failing recombiner generate a spurious
> excess heat signal?  Were any analyses made for impurities in the cell
> after the excess heat signal?  Was cell resistance continually
> monitored?  A constant current supply will input variable power as the
> voltage fluctuates to meet a varying resistance.]

The recombiner is finely divided platinum on graphite cloth. In this
cell, spray from bursting bubbles slowly coats the surface with
electrolyte. This deactivates the recombiner.  When the recombiner
fails, the D2 and O2 leave the cell and carry away chemical energy,
creating an essentially open cell.  This energy can be calculated and
added to the measured energy, as was done to obtain the one point called
"calculated excess". However, a small heat source is present, produced
as the lithium hydroxide in the electrolyte reacts with the graphite to
form Li2CO3. The amount of this heat can be calculated by noting how
much recombiner was lost after the experiment.  The amount of power is
less than 1 mW.

About 50 ml of D2O was used, the electrode was 1cm x 2cm x 1mm, and the
calorimeter was approximately 7 inches high. 

The heavy water was analyzed only for tritium and light-water. 

Yes, the cell resistance was monitored in that the cell voltage and
current were measured. These were measured during periods of several
minutes and averaged every 6 minutes.  The same method was used for the
calibration which would have allowed any errors to cancel.   Ed Storms

Rich Murray comments: I don't have this 1993 Storms report yet, but from
his 1996 "Review of the "Cold Fusion: Effect", the bibliography seems to
indicate that two papers are essentially the same report:

"Measurements of Excess Heat From a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic
Cell", Frontiers of Cold Fusion, Nagoya, Japan October 21-25, 1992, p.
21. Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, and

"Measurements of Excess Heat From a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic
Cell Using Palladium Sheet (1993) Fusion Technology, 23, 230.

Storms next paper is "Some Characteristic of Heat Production Using the
"Cold Fusion" Effect," [from ICCF-4, Maui, Dec. 6-9, 1993] (Dec.,1994)
Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 96.  I have this one.

The 1996 Review on page 6 summarizes the 1992 data:  1.1 MJ total excess
heat from start of run, 0.17 MJ/cm2 [giving a cathode area 6.5 cm2],
7.5 W maximum excess power, 1.1 W/cm2 maximum excess power [giving a
cathode area of 6.8 cm2].  The same kind of data is given for Pd+D cells
by 30 teams.  As in Storms own 1994 report, no excess powers are
expressed as a percentage of input power, and the input powers are not
given, which makes it very hard for me to assess what might be going on.
Storms 1 cm X 2 cm cathode gives an area, including the edge, of 4.6
cm2.

Storms 1994 report is about another cathode, Batch No. 4, charged with D
in 0.4 M LiOD at 20 mA/cm2, until the D/Pd ratio became constant at 0.84
after 9 hours. 

"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 exceed 0.5 watt.
Details of the calorimeter design and the calibration methods are
described in reference 1 [reference is his first report, 1992]."

However, I notice in Figure 1, that at 0.1 A current, the excess power
fluctuates at 0.0 W +-0.4 W, from hours 693 to 714, twice the random
variations mentioned just above, with peak excess powers of ~2.2 W at
hours 703, 709, 715 at 2.5 A current.  No excess heat was found during
the previous hours in the almost 30-day run.  "After 575 hrs, excess
heat was observed following the addition of 28 ppm of aluminum to a new
electrolytic solution."  The Al compound and its concentration are not
given.  McKubre claimed that Al would facilitate excess heat, but I am
not aware that this effect has been replicated.  Anyway, it took 118
hours, from 575 to 699 hours for the first excess heat, ~1 W at 1.0 A
current to appear.  The input powers are not given, nor any percentages
for excess power.  However, page 98 mentions using "Up to 40 watts of
applied power..." in testing the calorimeter.  The peak excess power of
~2.2 W is about 5% of 40 W and 11% of 20 W.  Recall the above quote:
"The total uncertainty in the measured heat value is about +-
4%."          
 "The charging behavior was similar to that produced by Batch #1 which
produced significant excess heat [reference is his first report, 1992]."

It appears that recombiner failure does not explain these excess heats,
which appear in the final day of a 30 day run, according to Fig. 1 in
the 1994 report.  McKubre found deposits of silica from his glass cells
coated his cathodes.  The role of impurities in generating small excess
heat artifacts can only be settled by close examination of the cell and
its components, and thorough chemical analysis of the electrolyte and
the electrodes before, during, and after excess heat.  The role of
bubbles, suds, foams, and gels would have to be settled.  Just what
might be the effect of increased joule heating at high current levels,
and would there be increased bubbling, increased production of bubbles
coating the electrodes, or disruption of existing bubble layers?  The
possibilites for subtle artifacts are myriad.  Does the aluminum
compound form a gel?  Were rapid fluctuations in resistance causing the
input electric power to be underestimated?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov  6 23:51:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA26360;
	Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:50:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:50:58 -0800
Message-ID: <3643FB51.115DE94B gte.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 00:48:38 -0700
From: Bob Horst <bhorst gte.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Illustration for Ross's book
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JzDBT1.0.kR6.Yl_Gs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24252
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross --

Last week, I was flying in to Honolulu on my way to a conference.  The
weather was clear and very still.  When we were at a few thousand feet,
I looked down and saw that the waves were making very interesting
patterns in the water.  Where there was constructive interference, the
waves were just high enough to form whitecaps, which looked like white
dots against the dark blue background.  Without consciously thinking
about it, I automatically started looking for patterns in the white dots
(constellations).  The configuration of the dots stayed remarkably
stable during the time we flew over.  So while all the other people on
the plane were marveling at the beauty of the islands, here I was
staring at the water and thinking about your aether theory.

Anyway, it struck me that you should try to get a photo from about that
height -- it would make a great illustration for your book.  Even
better, your trip to Hawaii would be tax deductible.

-- Bob Horst

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 02:37:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA11275;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:35:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:35:24 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981107104224.00e44d04 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: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 05:42:24 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Einstein-Pole Shift-Analysis Method
Resent-Message-ID: <"iqQtu2.0.5m2.i92Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24253
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I think my Icecube Cutter/Transport is still a good idea.

5/5/2000:

>  Twelve years before Mr. Brown's book Cataclysms of the Earth was
>published, Albert Einstein was writing a Foreword to a book called
>Earth's Shifting Crust, by Prof.  Charles H. Hapgood.  Prof. 
>Hapgood's book is about a pole-shift that took place around 6,000
>years ago.  Einstein wrote:
>
>  I frequently receive communications from people who wish to con-
>sult me concerning their unpublished ideas.  It goes without saying
>that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. 
>The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr.
>Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity,
>and-if it continues to prove itself-of great importance to every-
>thing that is related to the history of the earth's surface.
>  A great many empirical data indicate that at each point on the
>earth's surface that has been carefully studied, many climatic
>changes have taken place, apparently quite suddenly.  This,
>according to Hapgood, is explicable if the virtually rigid outer
>crust of the earth undergoes, from time to time, extensive
>displacement over the viscous, plastic, possibly fluid inner
>layers.  Such displacements may take place as the consequence of
>comparatively slight forces exerted on the crust, derived from the
>earth's momentum of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the
>axis of rotation of the earth's crust.
>  In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is
>not symmetrically distributed about the pole.  The earth's rotation
>acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces
>centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the
>earth.  The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in
>this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a
>movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body,
>and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.
>  Without a doubt the earth's crust is strong enough not to give way
>proportionately as the ice is deposited.  The only doubtful
>assumption is that the earth's crust can be moved easily enough
>over the inner layers.
>  The author has not confined himself to a simple presentation of
>this idea.  He has also set forth, cautiously and comprehensively,
>the extraordinarily rich material that supports his displacement
>theory.  I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating,
>idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself
>with the theory of the earth's development.
>  To close with an observation that has occurred to me while writing
>these lines: If the earth's crust is really so easily displaced
>over its substratum as this theory requires, then the rigid masses
>near the earth's surface must be distributed in such a way that
>they give rise to no other considerable centrifugal momentum, which
>would tend to displace the crust by centrifugal effect.  I think
>that this deduction might be capable of verification, at least
>approximately.  This centrifugal momentum should in any case be
>smaller than that produced by the masses of deposited ice. 14
>
>14 Hapgood, Earth's Shifting Crust, foreword by Albert Einstein.
>
>         311


Last paragraph states the analysis method. Data?


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 03:12:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16155;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 03:12:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 03:12:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b269d6a07622 [12.21.208.44]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:18:22 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"0o0Tc.0.Hy3.2i2Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24254
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:43 PM 11/7/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>Since Bill Beaty himself contributed to this subject recently, I
>guess that makes it on topic for vortex!


Yes - it is a technical discussion of "anamalous science" which falls
within the posted charter.  It would take a change in rules to make it off
topic.

>
>At 17:12 6/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>(big snip)
>>Yes. Also note that Dr. Norris states that the meaning of this is only that
>>the telescope is not pointed directly at the source, not that the radio
>>source is moving with respect to the background sky, if I understand what
>>he is saying:
>
>Yes that is correct.  We (I at least) are not certain at this point
>whether the object generating the carrier had proper motion with
>respect to EQ Pegasi, or whether the phase turning was due to the
>earths rotation coupled with some angular offset from EQ Pegasi.
>
>I am sure there is enough data presented to determine it, but
>since seeing clear evidence of deception on the part of the
>anonymous web master and the person who borrowed Paul Dore's
>identity, I have lost interest in investigating it since it is
>almost certainly just some old satellite.  It is hard enough
>making allowance for peoples mistakes and ignorance, but making
>allowance for deliberate deception is impossible.
>
>Given the raw data of phase vs time that has been plotted, I
>think I could work out how much of the apparent motion is due
>to the earths rotation, and how much is due to proper motion
>against the fixed star background.  However have not the
>enthusiasm to regenerate the data from the plot, and I do not
>want to bother Dr Norris for it.
>
>The plot of signal strength vs time is probably also sufficient
>to determine proper motion.  But we would need to know more
>about the antenna sensitivity lobes etc.


I don't think either is sufficient data.  The sample calculation I gave was
only to demonstrate the principle.  It lacks the refinements of a real
calculation, which would have to compensate for the earth's rotation rate
and the diameter of the earth.  The phase change in both the N-S and E-W
directions would be required to include these compensating values, I think.
Also, an accurate orbital paramter determination would require a number of
accurate observations, at least 5, through time.

The main problem is that SETI is not set up to handle near earth signals.
There is insufficient information collected for that.  There is no effort
to coordinate hits with optical obervations, which could confirm satellite
origin, or to attempt radar range finding or parallax observations.  There
is no consideration given to possibility of redshifting of the signal from
a near earth craft.

It would seem the mindset is that it is OK for aliens to be *there* but not
*here*.  The project to find near earth asteroids by radar pinging and
observing the reflections at Aricebo could yield some useful capabilities
that might be adapted for a near range SETI.   The most important thing to
do, though, would be, through the adoption of appropriate procedures by
SETI project, to mobilize the SETI amateur network for fast response work
on near earth targets.  The project would therefore need to include optical
observers as well.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 05:51:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02729;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:48:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:48:37 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199811071348.HAA12168 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: WARNING!
In-Reply-To: <502e957d.3643b2c6 aol.com> from "VCockeram@aol.com" at "Nov 6, 98 09:39:02 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:48:34 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sdKYo2.0.Zg.q-4Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24255
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> This came to me this morning over the company intranet as an official warning
> so I will pass it on here.
> Vince
> Las Vegas Nevada
> > >  Subject:  WARNING!
> >  > WARNING!
> >  >
> >  > If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It
> >  > will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to
> >  > as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and
> >  > not many people know about it. This information was announced
> >  > Monday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this
> >  > along to everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped.

This is a hoax.  Anything that asks you to "pass this along to everyone"
is a hoax.


-- 
 - 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  Sat Nov  7 06:07:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA07533;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:06:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:06:29 -0800
Message-ID: <01db01be0a57$5c95b460$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  sts-95 (http://shuttle.nasa.gov/index.html/)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:03:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE0A1C.A8189D20"
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: <"03FXZ2.0.ar1.aF5Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24256
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_001F_01BE0A1C.A8189D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Space Shuttle Flight Updates & Info.

http://shuttle.nasa.gov/index.html/

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE0A1C.A8189D20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" sts-95.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" sts-95.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://shuttle.nasa.gov/index.html/
Modified=60C11C19570ABE0176

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE0A1C.A8189D20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 06:17:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10752;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:16:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:16:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071415.JAA19015 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:18:04 -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: <"znwgG3.0.wd2.AP5Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24257
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Horace Heffner wrote:

> The cavitation intiated corrosion should occur in reduced pressure areas,
> and also not tend to be in laminar flow areas.
> 
> Good luch with your test.  Maybe the excess energy is related to all that
> iron in the GA water.   Beware water softeners.   8^)
> 
Actually, we are using GA water.  Ralph brought a lot of it up here with
the 3rd unit we tested here.  Shortly after we turned it on, he said the
rotor was not heating up correctly and that it would not be an interesting
run.  He was right.


Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 06:29:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15985;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:27:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:27:51 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981107143459.00e5b4d0 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: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 09:34:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Balance of Centrifugal Momentum Components
Resent-Message-ID: <"bNahY1.0.dv3.dZ5Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24258
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Albert Einstein offered the following thoughts concerning the balance of
centrifugal momentum forces on the Earth's crust.

>If the earth's crust is really so easily displaced
>over its substratum as this theory requires, then the rigid masses
>near the earth's surface must be distributed in such a way that
>they give rise to no other considerable centrifugal momentum, which
>would tend to displace the crust by centrifugal effect.  I think
>that this deduction might be capable of verification, at least
>approximately.  This centrifugal momentum should in any case be
>smaller than that produced by the masses of deposited ice.


I think this is the way to calculate proper balance of forces on the Earth's
crust to determine where and how much to trim the ice. Perhaps plate
techtonics science has land mass values calculated? They may have figures
for centrifugal momentum forces acting on the Earth's crust already established?


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 06:34:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17682;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:32:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:32:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071431.JAA20503 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:34:33 -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: <"t11JW1.0.CK4.3e5Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24259
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Dennis Lee wrote:

> 
> The plasmoid could be composed of Brown's gas which may permeate into the
metal.
> 
Have you done any experimentation with BG?

Ed Wall 
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 06:46:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20875;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:45:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:45:48 -0800
Message-ID: <001501be0a5c$57af2e40$db52ddcf craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:38:51 -0600
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 GAA20859
Resent-Message-ID: <"SxhXQ2.0.565.Rq5Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24260
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello Horace!

I believe I understand the principle you're trying to demonstrate now, and stand corrected on my comment that a changing phase between 2 sides of a telescope array necessarily indicates lateral motion of the source. As I understand it now, it does indicat

e lateral motion, but I was neglecting the natural lateral motion created by the rotation of the Earth. Given that the electronics of the array are compensating for  the natural change in position between antenna array, and the observed source, due to the

 rotation of the Earth, then such a phase change would occur only if the radio source was not directly targeted by the antenna array, as was the case here.

Calculating such a phase change seems complicated, though.

Thanks for your help!

Craig Haynie (Houston)





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 07:03:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24101;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:03:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:03:11 -0800
Message-ID: <020e01be0a5f$4b19b760$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) home page (http://www.nrel.gov/)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:59:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01BE0A24.952B5CE0"
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: <"mxSUM3.0.Vu5.k46Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24261
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_0038_01BE0A24.952B5CE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

NERL vs NREL!  Just kidding, Ed. :-)  NREL used to be SERI(Solar Energy
Research Institute).

http://www.nrel.gov/

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BE0A24.952B5CE0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) home page.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) home page.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nrel.gov/
Modified=005893DC5E0ABE01EE

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BE0A24.952B5CE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 07:09:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26408;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:07:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:07:56 -0800
Message-ID: <022a01be0a5f$f52d2520$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: NREL At a Glance (http://www.nrel.gov/lab/ataglance.htm)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:04:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0227_01BE0A25.48BD8440"
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: <"1lwQh.0.SS6.C96Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24262
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_0227_01BE0A25.48BD8440
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

worth reading.

http://www.nrel.gov/lab/ataglance.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0227_01BE0A25.48BD8440
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="NREL At a Glance.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="NREL At a Glance.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nrel.gov/lab/ataglance.htm
Modified=E0BF82B85F0ABE0101

------=_NextPart_000_0227_01BE0A25.48BD8440--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 07:57:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA09691;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:57:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:57:12 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:54:37 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811071056_MC2-5F74-98E3 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"W6aKQ1.0.LN2.Ot6Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24263
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed,

>> So far, however, this only seems to occur in Georgia. <<

In my earlier existence I had cause to examine the relative purity of
different water supplies, as nozzles were being destroyed at a faster rate
under the same flow and pressure conditions in a few locations.

It transpired that the 'purer' the water the faster the rate of erosion
under cavitation, and the occasional location had ultra-pure water with
very low dissolved impurities which was causing the accelerated wear.

You will know that ultra-pure de-ionised water can be extremely reactive.

A detailed analysis of the water supply in each location should also be
made, just in case.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 08:02:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA10405;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:59:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:59:53 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981107160710.00e647f0 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: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:07:10 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Resent-Message-ID: <"AXSfV1.0.RY2.vv6Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24264
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 09:34 AM 11/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Dennis Lee wrote:
>
>> 
>> The plasmoid could be composed of Brown's gas which may permeate into the
>metal.
>> 
>Have you done any experimentation with BG?

No but I have the video, books,and I have worked with vacuum bell jar plasma
dicharges. But the plasmoid is in water. It probably has atomic hydrogen in
it. At first, I didn't understand the ZPE pumping ability of atomic
hydrogen. I thought that the strange properties of BG was because of the
size of atomic hydrogen. It would permiate the surface of metals. The other
half is the ZPE pumping action when atomic hydrogen expands when it
dissociates. The extra volume entrains ether. On recombination, the hydrogen
atoms contracts and ether is converted into ZPE as heat.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 08:09:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13315;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:08:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:08:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071607.LAA02861 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:10:20 -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: <"1rQFK.0.zF3.I27Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24265
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Norman,

> In my earlier existence I had cause to examine the relative purity of
> different water supplies, as nozzles were being destroyed at a faster
rate
> under the same flow and pressure conditions in a few locations.
>
What sort of cavitation device were you testing?
 
> It transpired that the 'purer' the water the faster the rate of erosion
> under cavitation, and the occasional location had ultra-pure water with
> very low dissolved impurities which was causing the accelerated wear.
> 
> You will know that ultra-pure de-ionised water can be extremely reactive.
> 
> A detailed analysis of the water supply in each location should also be
> made, just in case.
> 
If we get something interesting, we plan to analyze everything we can.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 08:28:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18195;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:27:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:27:29 -0800
Message-ID: <025c01be0a6b$120d6a00$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:23:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ES2Qv.0.DS4.nJ7Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24266
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Wall <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols

Ed Wall wrote:


>
>Norman wrote,
>
>> In my earlier existence I had cause to examine the relative purity of
>> different water supplies, as nozzles were being destroyed at a faster
>rate
>> under the same flow and pressure conditions in a few locations.
>>
>What sort of cavitation device were you testing?
>
>> It transpired that the 'purer' the water the faster the rate of erosion
>> under cavitation, and the occasional location had ultra-pure water with
>> very low dissolved impurities which was causing the accelerated wear.
>>
>> You will know that ultra-pure de-ionised water can be extremely reactive.

Yes, and with high-purity water exposed to the atmosphere, the CO2, NOX, SOx
uptake to form the acids is phenomenal.
>>
>> A detailed analysis of the water supply in each location should also be
>> made, just in case.

For sure.
>>
>If we get something interesting, we plan to analyze everything we can.

Don't leave out the D+ ions.

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Ed Wall
>NERL
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 09:21:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00196;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:20:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:20:48 -0800
Message-ID: <364489AE.63F9 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 09:55:58 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Question about RF & Lasers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"t-amQ.0.-2.l58Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24267
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Dear Vortex

I have a question. I hope to get some kind of easy to follow non
mathematical approximation of how one would go about greating a radio
emission with the extremely
narrow beamwidth qualities of a laser.

I take it there is something quite different going on when "collimating"
a radio beam with say a parabolic reflecting antenna (satellite dish)
and the quantum mechanical 
activity which creates a laser beam. For example the he-ne lasers used
two mirrors, one
of them partially transparent and the activity taking place in the
energized gas between them is dependent on the exact spacing and
parallel surface alignments between the two mirrors (there were three
adjustment screws for this on my old he-ne laser). 

I have heard of "Maser" (Microwave Amplification Stimulated Emission of
Radiation) and was wondering if such could be used for long-haul
communications such as between ourselves and (ahem) " nearby " stellar
systems such as EQ Pegasi. 

Are there "Maser" radio com systems in use today, does anyone know?

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 09:53:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06984;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:26 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:19 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071752.JAA06850 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Question about RF & Lasers
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mdr173.0.0j1.PZ8Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24269
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Dear Vortex
>
>I have a question. I hope to get some kind of easy to follow non
>mathematical approximation of how one would go about greating a radio
>emission with the extremely
>narrow beamwidth qualities of a laser.
>
>I take it there is something quite different going on when "collimating"
>a radio beam with say a parabolic reflecting antenna (satellite dish)
>and the quantum mechanical 
>activity which creates a laser beam. For example the he-ne lasers used
>two mirrors, one

There isn't any magic, not even with lasers.  They are collimated simply
because the light emitted has been bouncing between mirrors that are flat,
and separated by a long distance.  Laser beams still disperse, slowly.  And
a lot of the light emitted by the plasma heads out of the sides of the
tubes, and isn't part of the beam.

Newer lasers get more of the light emitted in the actual direction of the
beam, but that is another story.

For radio, it is tough because the wavelength is so long.

The best approximation would be to use the phased array radar technique.
use multiple dishes, separated by a large distance, and then beam a signal
outward.  There is a preferred path of positive, ie constructive, interference.

Go read up on VLA to see what they actually do.  They used the VLA radar
array to locate SOHO by sending out tightly collimated beams of radio waves,
bouncing them off the satellite, and then detecting them a couple seconds
later, all with the same array antennas.  The array takes the place of the
mirrors in the laser beam.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 09:53:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06954;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:24 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:52:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071752.JAA06853 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: Illustration for Ross's book
Resent-Message-ID: <"n0Ccx3.0.Wi1.NZ8Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24268
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings;

I have seen the pattern you mean.  The cresting keeps the heights of the
waves close to an average over large areas.  The waves that poke up too high
lose energy via cresting and you see the white caps.

Now, imagine that the entire pattern of waves WAS spacetime.  That the
entire ocean you were looking at is the universe.  That the water was
aether.  That the white caps were locations of the formation and
disappearance of "virtual particles".  And that the waves you may have
noticed superposed on top of the regular pattern, cutting across the grain
due to reflections heading out away from the nearby islands, were "fields".
And that the islands were "particles".  

Unfortunately, the particle analogy in this isn't very good because instead
of an island, you should have the concetric circular waves converging,
making a huge white cap, and then diverging again.  

Spacetime, is a regular structure of standing wave energy permeating the
entire ocean, and particles are localized regions that are buzzing in
cadence with spacetime, but they are spherically symmetric (circularly
symmetric for the ocean analogy).  

Basically, you replace space, spacetime, particles, and fields all with just
the different shapes of waves.  So there isn't really any such thing as
"matter" or "empty space".  You work with a vast ocean instead, and you must
track any waves, and you must track how any currents in the ocean alter the
path of advance of waves.  That tells you where a "particle" is going to go.

We wouldn't have any flow at all if it were not for exothermy.  Exothermy,
ie fusion in stars and our sun, emit aether.  So they are like a river
delta, with water flowing outward into the rest of the ocean.  Exothermic
reactions are a slowed down version of the original inflationary process at
the beginning of the big bang.  Rather than rampant inflation, it is now
slowed down to a steady "boil", and stars are doing the boiling away of
condensed aether to emit vapor aether out into the ocean of "empty space".

Ross Tessien




>Ross --
>
>Last week, I was flying in to Honolulu on my way to a conference.  The
>weather was clear and very still.  When we were at a few thousand feet,
>I looked down and saw that the waves were making very interesting
>patterns in the water.  Where there was constructive interference, the
>waves were just high enough to form whitecaps, which looked like white
>dots against the dark blue background.  Without consciously thinking
>about it, I automatically started looking for patterns in the white dots
>(constellations).  The configuration of the dots stayed remarkably
>stable during the time we flew over.  So while all the other people on
>the plane were marveling at the beauty of the islands, here I was
>staring at the water and thinking about your aether theory.
>
>Anyway, it struck me that you should try to get a photo from about that
>height -- it would make a great illustration for your book.  Even
>better, your trip to Hawaii would be tax deductible.
>
>-- Bob Horst
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 10:27:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18177;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:25:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:25:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199811071824.NAA19148 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:26:58 -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: <"o6Bmm1.0.xR4.O29Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24270
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Dennis,
 
> >Have you done any experimentation with BG?
> 
> No but I have the video, books,and I have worked with vacuum bell jar
plasma
> dicharges. But the plasmoid is in water. It probably has atomic hydrogen
in
> it. At first, I didn't understand the ZPE pumping ability of atomic
> hydrogen. I thought that the strange properties of BG was because of the
> size of atomic hydrogen. It would permiate the surface of metals. The
other
> half is the ZPE pumping action when atomic hydrogen expands when it
> dissociates. The extra volume entrains ether. On recombination, the
hydrogen
> atoms contracts and ether is converted into ZPE as heat.
> 
> 
You may wish to at least attempt confirmation of the many reported
anomalous properties of BG.  MSDS sheets for hydrogen state a figure for
lower explosive limit for hydrogen with oxygen as quite low.  A mix of the
two is not hard to detonate.  I suggest you use a stochiometric mixture of
O2 and H2 and compare.  An oxy-hydrogen welding flame has very interesting
properties, but there is no reason to suppose any monatomic H is
responsible, as far as we could determine.

If we found one remarkable thing, it is that the gas does not detonate in
the tank.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 10:44:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22679;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:42:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:42:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3644A292.417A7DB6 gold.globalcafe.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 19:42:13 +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, renergy@list.kz
Subject: fusion weapons at Livermore
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YXc0S1.0.HY5.bI9Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24271
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This came my way, part of a continued query into the role of hot fusion
research in weapons development.

Any comments?

JA

Recent research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER) has determined that proposed fusion experiments at a US
government laboratory would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT).  This issue needs to be resolved through an appropriate
international forum.  In the interim, we believe that the University of
California should suspend work on this project.

To that end, we are circulating this letter for the signature of as many
scientist, engineers, community activists, and other concerned people in
the United States.  As you know, the University of California is the
contractor operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the
Regents are the governing body of the university.  The letter also calls
on the Regents to initiate a public debate about the continuing role of
the university in nuclear weapons research.

Background:  The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a multi-billion
dollar laser fusion facility being constructed at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.  NIF is designed to create fusion explosions of 10
pounds of TNT or even more.  While the US government asserts this
research is exempt from the CTBT, our research has shown these
explosions are "nuclear explosions" covered by the CTBT and are
therefore banned.

In fact, since the treaty bans planning for such explosions, the current
construction is in violation of the treaty.  Moreover, if NIF is
successful in creating fusion explosions using lasers, it would
establish the scientific feasibility of designing pure fusion weapons.
Such weapons would not require plutonium or highly enriched uranium and
would radically alter the threat of nuclear weapons. Most of IEER's
report, Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, is on our website
(http://www.ieer.org).  If you would like a hard copy please let us
know.

        If you would like to add your name to the list of signatories,
please contact Hisham Zerriffi at IEER by e-mail (hisham ieer.org) or
phone (301/270-5500).

Thank you,

Arjun Makhijani, President
Hisham Zerriffi, Project Scientist

------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204
Takoma Park     MD      20912



John G. Davies
Chairman of the Board
University of California Regents
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Dear Mr. Davies,

        We, the undersigned, are writing to urge the University of
California Regents to declare a moratorium on construction of the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.  The facility, being built and to be operated by the
University of California, is designed to conduct contained thermonuclear
explosions, experiments which may be considered illegal under the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The CTBT prohibits "any nuclear
weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion."  The CTBT also
requires parties to "prevent" nuclear explosions in their jurisdictions.

A July 1998 report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research (IEER), Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, determined that the
planned explosions in NIF are banned under the CTBT.  While NIF cannot
be miniaturized into a weapon, research on it would establish the
scientific feasibility of creating fusion explosions without a primary
fission trigger -- a first step toward establishing the feasibility of
pure fusion weapons. It would feed directly into research at Los Alamos
and Sandia on technologies which have the potential for miniaturization.

If the scientific and engineering barriers to pure fusion weapons are
overcome, a new class of weapons could emerge that would radically
increase the nuclear threat.  Pure fusion weapons would not require
plutonium or highly enriched uranium, the acquisition of which is one of
the main obstacles to nuclear proliferation.  These weapons could also
be made in various sizes, from very small to very large, and would not
produce the highly radioactive fallout of current nuclear weapons.  At
the same time, the release of large numbers of neutrons would make them
very effective at killing people while minimizing blast effects.

Given the grave implications of this research and the troubling
questions surrounding its legality, we strongly urge the UC Regents to
take immediate action.  As the governing body of the University of
California overseeing its contract to operate national laboratories, the
Regents should take whatever action is necessary for the Laboratory to
suspend work on the NIF project until the legal questions are resolved
by the CTBT review conference or other appropriate international body.

The Regents could also use the time during the work suspension to
conduct a university-wide debate on the appropriateness of one of the
world's greatest universities continuing with nuclear weapons research.
This should be a matter of far wider public debate within the academic
community and the country as a whole.  We urge that you use the occasion
of the NIF review to initiate that debate.  We would appreciate
receiving your response, which should be sent to Arjun Makhijani and
Hisham Zerriffi of IEER at 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD
20912.

Sincerely,

Arjun Makhijani
President, IEER
Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1972

Hisham Zerriffi
Project Scientist, IEER

Cc: All members of the University of California Board of Regents.





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 12:51:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20572;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:46:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:46:41 -0800
Message-Id: <199811072046.OAA20371 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:44:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: SETI Institute "Refutation" of "Paul Dore's" Alleged SETI Hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0biz61.0.E15.m6BHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24272
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell -
>
>Mitchell, believe what you want to about the reason for the Dore hoax, but
>the information from that source is highly suspect to say the least. That's
>because by definition a hoax *consists* of lies. You might want to
>speculate that there are some truths sandwiched in there somewhere if you
>like. That is pure speculation on your part. It is not reliable data upon
>which to construct theories of decelerating alien probes, government
>coverups, etc.

***{True enough: it is clear that there is a hoaxer, but it is not clear
which side of the story is the hoax. Is "Paul Dore's" story a hoax, or is
the theory that it is a hoax, itself, a hoax? It is a difficult, complex,
and delicious intellectual problem. I, for one, enjoy thinking about such
things. One source of the attraction is the possibility that, if you
analyze the facts closely enough, you will find a "smoking gun" someone
among the complexities, and will be able to reach a clear conclusion. That
process is facilitated by the cut and thrust of debate. People committed to
one side or the other, in the search for evidence contradicting the views
of their opponents, can come up with amazing insights, and that is what
renders the process of (polite) argumentation worthwhile.

If, for example, "Paul Dore" had ever said that the photos of the black
sedans were taken in front of his house--which, unfortunately, he did
not--it would be possible to simply have one of the Brits on this list go
to his house and see if the tree and building shown in the background of
the lower photo is present in the vicinity. If it were not, that would
prove that the story is a hoax. As it stands at present, however, the
usefulness of such a visit would depend on luck--i.e., on the possibility
that, even though he didn't say that the pictures were taken in front of
his house, they in fact were taken there. In that case, the finding of the
background of the lower photo would prove that "Paul Dore" is now lying
when he says he is not the source of the story. Not finding the background,
on the other hand, would prove nothing.

In any case, not merely is this a difficult problem, but it is also an
immensely important one, and it is worth some time and effort to solve. One
very clear-cut approach to dealing with it in a scientific manner is to
simply acquire one of the old 12 or 14 foot--the larger the
better--satellite dishes, and begin a systematic search of the coordinates
in the vicinity of the sun, beginning of course near EQ Pegasi, and see if
the signal is there or not. A sufficient number of amateur sightings would
clinch this eventually, despite any continued denials from those
controlling government owned radiotelescopes. Thus the danger is that
radiotelescope amateurs will, through intellectual inertia, fail to
recognize that acceptance of the government's view is an act of faith
rather than of reason. After all, as things stand now you either trust that
the authorities would not intimidate "Paul Dore" and the fellow at
geocities.com into silence, or you do not. And trusting the authorities is
an act of faith, plain and simple.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>So you don't trust the 'establishment' spin on this. Fine. Do you trust
>actual un-hoaxed experimental evidence then? See Craig Haynie's post "Re:
>Another Message from ATNF" for an explanation of *real* data that refutes
>the premises behind these speculations spawned from this cheap little
>internet hoax.

***{Craig Haynie, John Winterflood, and Horace Heffner are all making
pertinent and insightful comments on this topic, and I will have my say on
it as soon as I can find the time. For now, suffice it to say that I do not
think Craig and John have refuted anything, though I am very glad they
posted their comments. They, and Horace, are approaching this in the proper
way--with reasoned, scientific  arguments--and are to be commended for
that. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>By the way, I listened to Art Bell Wednesday night. He had Richard Hoaglund
>as a guest, and Richard shares your view of a cover up conspiracy.

***{Let me clarify my view. I think there is ample evidence of the
existence of a cover-up conspiracy stretching back decades, but I am not
yet satisfied that the present case is an instance of that. Hoaxes,
unfortunately, are sometimes perpetrated by private individuals, and one
may have been perpetrated here. The possibility that this SETI hit is real,
however, is of such immense importance--especially when considered in the
light of this "suncruiser" stuff--that it needs to be pursued to the point
of final resolution by all means possible. --Mitchell Jones}***

>Unfortunately, it was all based on the same highly disreputable data, and,
>as it must, also ignored important details of the data that does come from
>reliable sources.

***{Reliable sources? Which sources, pray tell, do you consider to be
reliable, and what reason, other than your willingness to make a leap of
faith, do you have for that trust? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>This is like taking the principles of scientific inquiry and inverting
>them. Trust rumor and hoax, throw out real experimental data

***{By "real experimental data" I assume you are referring to the data
supplied from government controlled sources, and by "rumor and hoax," I
assume you are referring to data from private sources. Does that sum it up?
If so, then let me  repeat what I have said already: there is overwhelming
evidence that existing governments cannot be trusted. Parasitic elites have
solved the problem of "free democratic elections" very simply: they manage
the flow of information, thereby ensuring that the odds are stacked in
favor of their hand picked candidates, of whatever party, and that,
whichever party wins, they remain in control. The result is a world of
nominal democracies, where each allegedly "democratic" nation is in fact
dominated by parasitic elites just as surely as is the case in a
dictatorship of the traditional type. Simply put: management of
information, or "spin control," is at the core of modern-day "democratic"
tyrannies, and that means government controlled sources of information
cannot be trusted. Period. --Mitchell Jones}***

, and speculate
>wildly on the results. I don't like it one bit.

***{What you need to do is set your feelings aside and make a rational
decision about whether government information sources--and that includes
every source owned or funded by government, as well as nominally "private"
sources that are in the hands of people who worship the state--can be
trusted to report truths which would threaten the ruling elite's ability to
retain the reins of power. If you do that, I think you will be surprised to
discover that much of what you think you know is, in fact, mere assumption.
--Mitchell Jones}***

 There is lots of good
>evidence for some of the mysterious things seen on the "fringe"; CF or even
>UFOs among them. But these mysteries will eventually yield to scientific
>inquiry if people don't just give up on the method because there's
>resistance to new paradigms. Groundless speculative excursions like yours
>and Hoaglund's add nothing of value to the understanding these mysteries.
>On the contrary, they tend to discredit the actual scientific efforts
>people are making to find the truth behind them.

***{I know nothing of "Hoaglund." I have never heard of him. As for your
claim that my assessment of this situation is a "groundless  speculative
excursion," I can only say that I prefer to accept the actual realities of
a problem, rather than a perspective based on faith, when I am doing an
analysis. And the actual reality of *this* problem, whether you like it or
not, is that *none* of the alleged sources can be trusted, until potent
reasoning has been unearthed in support of them. Recognizing that, I prefer
attempting to solve the actual problem that exists, rather than the
entirely imaginary "problem" that conformists want to believe exists.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 13:07:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24266;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:01:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:01:41 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:01:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199811072101.NAA27315 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: LLNL NIF, Hot Fusion
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZwXif.0.4x5.qKBHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24273
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As much as I am confident that we will succeed at producing energy via one
or more of the class of devices called "cold fusion", the fact is that hot
fusion is a potentially viable path to producing energy.  By this I mean
that hot fusion does in fact produce heat energy via fusion reactions.

The fact that those devices are tremendously difficult, and that we are not
remotely close to a reliable power source doesn't discount the fact that
they are one possible avenue to producing energy in the future.  Research
should, IMO, continue.  

My only objection is that the CF approaches are not given a portion of the
total available funding for new energy sources.

The fact is, in about 20 more years the global energy production is going to
be outstripped by global energy demands.  When this happens, energy is going
to become an extremely expensive comodity.  The reason is because it is
compounded in all things you buy.  When you buy a car, doll, loaf of bread,
or whatever, included in it come three things;  human brain power (to drive
vehicles to transport, harvest, mine, bake, fabricate etc.), Raw Materials
(plants, animals, or mined minerals), and Energy.

Energy appears at a multitude of steps in the process of bringing each and
every product to market.  Without it, modern man would starve to death,
literally, because we couldn't make the machinery to make the machinery to
grow the food we need to survive.

Thus, all possible avenues should be pursued up until the time we have a
solution in hand.  Cold fusion devices must first be put into practical
utilization prior to our canning research into the more dubious hot fusion
approaches.

We, above all groups, should keep this in the fore front.  It doesn't matter
who cracks the energy nut.  It matters that it is solved.  And all possible
solutions should be explored.  This, is the travesty of the cold fusion
problem.  Even though it sounds impossible to main stream physicists, it
should still be funded at a low level simply because of how radically
important the success in this endeavor will be to mankind.

So, while it is true that LLNL's information is useful in constructing
bombs, it is also useful in constructing a source of energy.  If we fail at
this task, we aren't going to need to worry about the bombs anyway.

Ross Tessien


>This came my way, part of a continued query into the role of hot fusion
>research in weapons development.
>
>Any comments?
>
>JA
>
>Recent research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
>(IEER) has determined that proposed fusion experiments at a US
>government laboratory would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
>(CTBT).  This issue needs to be resolved through an appropriate
>international forum.  In the interim, we believe that the University of
>California should suspend work on this project.
>
>To that end, we are circulating this letter for the signature of as many
>scientist, engineers, community activists, and other concerned people in
>the United States.  As you know, the University of California is the
>contractor operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the
>Regents are the governing body of the university.  The letter also calls
>on the Regents to initiate a public debate about the continuing role of
>the university in nuclear weapons research.
>
>Background:  The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a multi-billion
>dollar laser fusion facility being constructed at the Lawrence Livermore
>National Laboratory.  NIF is designed to create fusion explosions of 10
>pounds of TNT or even more.  While the US government asserts this
>research is exempt from the CTBT, our research has shown these
>explosions are "nuclear explosions" covered by the CTBT and are
>therefore banned.
>
>In fact, since the treaty bans planning for such explosions, the current
>construction is in violation of the treaty.  Moreover, if NIF is
>successful in creating fusion explosions using lasers, it would
>establish the scientific feasibility of designing pure fusion weapons.
>Such weapons would not require plutonium or highly enriched uranium and
>would radically alter the threat of nuclear weapons. Most of IEER's
>report, Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, is on our website
>(http://www.ieer.org).  If you would like a hard copy please let us
>know.
>
>        If you would like to add your name to the list of signatories,
>please contact Hisham Zerriffi at IEER by e-mail (hisham ieer.org) or
>phone (301/270-5500).
>
>Thank you,
>
>Arjun Makhijani, President
>Hisham Zerriffi, Project Scientist
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
>6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204
>Takoma Park     MD      20912
>
>
>
>John G. Davies
>Chairman of the Board
>University of California Regents
>1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
>Oakland, CA 94607
>
>Dear Mr. Davies,
>
>        We, the undersigned, are writing to urge the University of
>California Regents to declare a moratorium on construction of the
>National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National
>Laboratory.  The facility, being built and to be operated by the
>University of California, is designed to conduct contained thermonuclear
>explosions, experiments which may be considered illegal under the
>Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The CTBT prohibits "any nuclear
>weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion."  The CTBT also
>requires parties to "prevent" nuclear explosions in their jurisdictions.
>
>A July 1998 report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
>Research (IEER), Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, determined that the
>planned explosions in NIF are banned under the CTBT.  While NIF cannot
>be miniaturized into a weapon, research on it would establish the
>scientific feasibility of creating fusion explosions without a primary
>fission trigger -- a first step toward establishing the feasibility of
>pure fusion weapons. It would feed directly into research at Los Alamos
>and Sandia on technologies which have the potential for miniaturization.
>
>If the scientific and engineering barriers to pure fusion weapons are
>overcome, a new class of weapons could emerge that would radically
>increase the nuclear threat.  Pure fusion weapons would not require
>plutonium or highly enriched uranium, the acquisition of which is one of
>the main obstacles to nuclear proliferation.  These weapons could also
>be made in various sizes, from very small to very large, and would not
>produce the highly radioactive fallout of current nuclear weapons.  At
>the same time, the release of large numbers of neutrons would make them
>very effective at killing people while minimizing blast effects.
>
>Given the grave implications of this research and the troubling
>questions surrounding its legality, we strongly urge the UC Regents to
>take immediate action.  As the governing body of the University of
>California overseeing its contract to operate national laboratories, the
>Regents should take whatever action is necessary for the Laboratory to
>suspend work on the NIF project until the legal questions are resolved
>by the CTBT review conference or other appropriate international body.
>
>The Regents could also use the time during the work suspension to
>conduct a university-wide debate on the appropriateness of one of the
>world's greatest universities continuing with nuclear weapons research.
>This should be a matter of far wider public debate within the academic
>community and the country as a whole.  We urge that you use the occasion
>of the NIF review to initiate that debate.  We would appreciate
>receiving your response, which should be sent to Arjun Makhijani and
>Hisham Zerriffi of IEER at 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD
>20912.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Arjun Makhijani
>President, IEER
>Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1972
>
>Hisham Zerriffi
>Project Scientist, IEER
>
>Cc: All members of the University of California Board of Regents.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 13:07:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25502;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:05:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:05:22 -0800
Message-ID: <3644BE3C.2EE8 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 13:40:13 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about RF & Lasers
References: <199811071752.JAA06850 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_P-x13.0.KE6.IOBHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24274
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> 
> >Dear Vortex
> >
> >I have a question. I hope to get some kind of easy to follow non
> >mathematical approximation of how one would go about greating a radio
> >emission with the extremely
> >narrow beamwidth qualities of a laser.
> >
> >I take it there is something quite different going on when "collimating"
> >a radio beam with say a parabolic reflecting antenna (satellite dish)
> >and the quantum mechanical
> >activity which creates a laser beam. For example the he-ne lasers used
> >two mirrors, one
> 
> There isn't any magic, not even with lasers.  They are collimated simply
> because the light emitted has been bouncing between mirrors that are flat,
> and separated by a long distance.  Laser beams still disperse, slowly.  And
> a lot of the light emitted by the plasma heads out of the sides of the
> tubes, and isn't part of the beam.

Yes. I didn't actually think there was any magic involved, Ross , but
since  lasers were once considered for SETI signalling purposes  but
rejected because the visible light frequency characteristic of a laser
would make it impossible to separate the laser emission from the star
(of the planet using such an apparatus) , I was considering the
possibility of a maser emitting a frequency elsewhere from naturally
occurring stellar radiation.   

The fact that using a long tube (compared to the wavelength) of the
emission seems to give a much tighter beam than any single parabolic
reflector could, I would think such an apparatus would be much more
efficient for the purposes of a single SETI station. The ideal , I
suppose would be a spaceborne system in orbit around the earth, enabling
very long tube lengths.

The typical maser seems to use hydrogen .  I did a web search and can't
find much intelligible about construction details etc.  

Jim Ostrowski
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 13:35:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00613;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:30:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:30:11 -0800
Message-ID: <029401be0a95$58a0f160$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: LLNL NIF, Hot Fusion
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:26:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"nkE7V2.0.V9.YlBHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24275
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Tessien <tessien oro.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 2:02 PM
Subject: LLNL NIF, Hot Fusion

Well said Ross, I agree 100%.  Ironically, Keeves .M. (Kip)Siegel died on
the senate sub-committee floor while trying to convince the DOE. (Then AEC)
that laser fusion was a workable method of getting Hot Fusion reactions. The
"Establishment" fought him about as hard as they are Cold Fusion. I'm sure
Dick Blue probably was an adversary since Kip since Kip's company KMS inc.,
was in the Ann Arbor Area. I think his patents are still classified.

Regards,  Frederick

Ross Tessian wrote:


>As much as I am confident that we will succeed at producing energy via one
>or more of the class of devices called "cold fusion", the fact is that hot
>fusion is a potentially viable path to producing energy.  By this I mean
>that hot fusion does in fact produce heat energy via fusion reactions.
>
>The fact that those devices are tremendously difficult, and that we are not
>remotely close to a reliable power source doesn't discount the fact that
>they are one possible avenue to producing energy in the future.  Research
>should, IMO, continue.
>
>My only objection is that the CF approaches are not given a portion of the
>total available funding for new energy sources.
>
>The fact is, in about 20 more years the global energy production is going
to
>be outstripped by global energy demands.  When this happens, energy is
going
>to become an extremely expensive comodity.  The reason is because it is
>compounded in all things you buy.  When you buy a car, doll, loaf of bread,
>or whatever, included in it come three things;  human brain power (to drive
>vehicles to transport, harvest, mine, bake, fabricate etc.), Raw Materials
>(plants, animals, or mined minerals), and Energy.
>
>Energy appears at a multitude of steps in the process of bringing each and
>every product to market.  Without it, modern man would starve to death,
>literally, because we couldn't make the machinery to make the machinery to
>grow the food we need to survive.
>
>Thus, all possible avenues should be pursued up until the time we have a
>solution in hand.  Cold fusion devices must first be put into practical
>utilization prior to our canning research into the more dubious hot fusion
>approaches.
>
>We, above all groups, should keep this in the fore front.  It doesn't
matter
>who cracks the energy nut.  It matters that it is solved.  And all possible
>solutions should be explored.  This, is the travesty of the cold fusion
>problem.  Even though it sounds impossible to main stream physicists, it
>should still be funded at a low level simply because of how radically
>important the success in this endeavor will be to mankind.
>
>So, while it is true that LLNL's information is useful in constructing
>bombs, it is also useful in constructing a source of energy.  If we fail at
>this task, we aren't going to need to worry about the bombs anyway.
>
>Ross Tessien
>
>
>>This came my way, part of a continued query into the role of hot fusion
>>research in weapons development.
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>JA
>>
>>Recent research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
>>(IEER) has determined that proposed fusion experiments at a US
>>government laboratory would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
>>(CTBT).  This issue needs to be resolved through an appropriate
>>international forum.  In the interim, we believe that the University of
>>California should suspend work on this project.
>>
>>To that end, we are circulating this letter for the signature of as many
>>scientist, engineers, community activists, and other concerned people in
>>the United States.  As you know, the University of California is the
>>contractor operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the
>>Regents are the governing body of the university.  The letter also calls
>>on the Regents to initiate a public debate about the continuing role of
>>the university in nuclear weapons research.
>>
>>Background:  The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a multi-billion
>>dollar laser fusion facility being constructed at the Lawrence Livermore
>>National Laboratory.  NIF is designed to create fusion explosions of 10
>>pounds of TNT or even more.  While the US government asserts this
>>research is exempt from the CTBT, our research has shown these
>>explosions are "nuclear explosions" covered by the CTBT and are
>>therefore banned.
>>
>>In fact, since the treaty bans planning for such explosions, the current
>>construction is in violation of the treaty.  Moreover, if NIF is
>>successful in creating fusion explosions using lasers, it would
>>establish the scientific feasibility of designing pure fusion weapons.
>>Such weapons would not require plutonium or highly enriched uranium and
>>would radically alter the threat of nuclear weapons. Most of IEER's
>>report, Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, is on our website
>>(http://www.ieer.org).  If you would like a hard copy please let us
>>know.
>>
>>        If you would like to add your name to the list of signatories,
>>please contact Hisham Zerriffi at IEER by e-mail (hisham ieer.org) or
>>phone (301/270-5500).
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Arjun Makhijani, President
>>Hisham Zerriffi, Project Scientist
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
>>6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204
>>Takoma Park     MD      20912
>>
>>
>>
>>John G. Davies
>>Chairman of the Board
>>University of California Regents
>>1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
>>Oakland, CA 94607
>>
>>Dear Mr. Davies,
>>
>>        We, the undersigned, are writing to urge the University of
>>California Regents to declare a moratorium on construction of the
>>National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National
>>Laboratory.  The facility, being built and to be operated by the
>>University of California, is designed to conduct contained thermonuclear
>>explosions, experiments which may be considered illegal under the
>>Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The CTBT prohibits "any nuclear
>>weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion."  The CTBT also
>>requires parties to "prevent" nuclear explosions in their jurisdictions.
>>
>>A July 1998 report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
>>Research (IEER), Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, determined that the
>>planned explosions in NIF are banned under the CTBT.  While NIF cannot
>>be miniaturized into a weapon, research on it would establish the
>>scientific feasibility of creating fusion explosions without a primary
>>fission trigger -- a first step toward establishing the feasibility of
>>pure fusion weapons. It would feed directly into research at Los Alamos
>>and Sandia on technologies which have the potential for miniaturization.
>>
>>If the scientific and engineering barriers to pure fusion weapons are
>>overcome, a new class of weapons could emerge that would radically
>>increase the nuclear threat.  Pure fusion weapons would not require
>>plutonium or highly enriched uranium, the acquisition of which is one of
>>the main obstacles to nuclear proliferation.  These weapons could also
>>be made in various sizes, from very small to very large, and would not
>>produce the highly radioactive fallout of current nuclear weapons.  At
>>the same time, the release of large numbers of neutrons would make them
>>very effective at killing people while minimizing blast effects.
>>
>>Given the grave implications of this research and the troubling
>>questions surrounding its legality, we strongly urge the UC Regents to
>>take immediate action.  As the governing body of the University of
>>California overseeing its contract to operate national laboratories, the
>>Regents should take whatever action is necessary for the Laboratory to
>>suspend work on the NIF project until the legal questions are resolved
>>by the CTBT review conference or other appropriate international body.
>>
>>The Regents could also use the time during the work suspension to
>>conduct a university-wide debate on the appropriateness of one of the
>>world's greatest universities continuing with nuclear weapons research.
>>This should be a matter of far wider public debate within the academic
>>community and the country as a whole.  We urge that you use the occasion
>>of the NIF review to initiate that debate.  We would appreciate
>>receiving your response, which should be sent to Arjun Makhijani and
>>Hisham Zerriffi of IEER at 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD
>>20912.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Arjun Makhijani
>>President, IEER
>>Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1972
>>
>>Hisham Zerriffi
>>Project Scientist, IEER
>>
>>Cc: All members of the University of California Board of Regents.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 14:16:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11930;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:14:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:14:35 -0800
Message-ID: <02aa01be0a9b$8e337c20$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>, <Bobcandeu@aol.com>
Subject: Re; OFF TOPIC, Bountiful Harvest
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:10:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"EQd3T2.0.Jw2.BPCHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24276
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A Pennsylvania farmer stored apples, potatoes,
cabbage, and nuts in his cellar. He noticed that a large rat was raiding his
winter stash,
so he set some traps near the storage bins.

The next morning he proudly announced to his wife that he had "caught that
sucker".

His wife asked, "did you catch him by the apples?" He replied,"Nope". "By
the cabbage and potatoes?"

"Nope".  :-)

Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 14:49:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21006;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:46:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:46:30 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Pegasi signal: parallax?
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:46:23 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3647cced.143240560 24.192.1.20>
References: <v01530502b2665a722f88 [208.228.222.189]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b2665a722f88 [208.228.222.189]>
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: <"XaH6Q.0.885.5tCHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24277
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:37:55 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
[snip]
>Back to your point.  Our own ELF signals might be reflected by such a field
>line linkage?  Kind of like strumming a big string from one end.  It still

Implicit in the word "strumming", is resonance. The wavelength that
matches the distance to the asteroid resonates, and thus the amplitude
builds. As the distance changes, so does the wavelength of the
resonant wave, hence the rising frequency up to the point of nearest
approach.

>seems like this is not a viable explanation, unless there is a feedback
>mechanism to amplify the oscillation some way.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 15:36:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00239;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:28:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:28:09 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:09:33 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pope visit protocols
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811071812_MC2-5F65-1BD0 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"WHIgb1.0.a3.9UDHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24278
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed,

>> What sort of cavitation device were you testing? <<

These were high density Tungsten carbide fan-jet nozzles, to my patented
design.  The jet shaping elements were flat chisel-shaped pieces across an
elliptical convergent/parallel orifice outlet.  The different water types
would either destroy the 'chisels' after 100's hours, or only an hour or
so, depending on the 'purity' of the water.  This was a combination of
grain boundary attack and cavitation.  The pressure ranged from 1000bar to
2000bar.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 15:57:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09126;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:55:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:55:27 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981108000229.00e50b9c 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: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 19:02:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Illustration for Ross's book / Black Holes Of Knowledge
Resent-Message-ID: <"F6R1H.0.WE2.ltDHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24279
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 09:52 AM 11/7/98 -0800, you wrote:

>I have seen the pattern you mean.  The cresting keeps the heights of the
>waves close to an average over large areas.  The waves that poke up too high
>lose energy via cresting and you see the white caps.

I wonder what happens if they see the white caps? A certain highly respected
professor says they'll figure out some way of throwing one in jail. Does
anyone know what thresh hold of behavior pattern get's that response? Does
writing messages of what one believes to be scientifically accurate
information get one thrown in the pokey? I would like to know who enforces
such policies? Didn't 10,000 or so people get tore up and smothered with mud
in Central America a few days ago? The week before didn't Texas flood big
time? It seems every two weeks there's another natural disaster of Biblical
scale? I would ask these Black Holes Of Knowledge if we would be having
these weather related catastrophies if the technology they have been
repressing for the last 100 years were released for the benefit of society
even 10 or 20 years ago? Do they have a grand plan that will save us all
from unspeakable events that may happen in the near future? I'm afraid the
underground cities we've been paying for is the grand plan but we won't be
invited. They with hold technology absolutely essential for our very
survival because of 'National Security' (-intense irrational fear of
something that might happen but hasn't yet)? One might say, look who's
talking. I would say, we are going to be facing cold, hard, absolute and
deadly physics phenomena in the near future (even worse than now). What were
those people who said they were defending 'National Security' thinking
because  their actions may likely caused the destruction of the nation (the
people, us)? What do they have to say for themselves now? Even now, there
could be a slight chance of avoiding impending disasters but they still
refuse to help us by coming clean and giving access to suppressed advanced
technology. It looks like they will stick to the plan until the very bitter
end. Play really dumb until the Big One hits. Then quickly duck out in the
handy underground selfsustaining city we paid for. Sorry, we won't be
invited if such an event happens. We'll be left topside because we're
"expendable". What Nation was this National Security idea created for? At
the very least, they have put to great risk, literally everything and
everybody. In an almost dependable cowardly manner, they will say nothing
and let us die if necessary. NOW IS THE TIME TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS AND
USE THE VERY BEST OF EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING WE HAVE TO DO THE VERY BEST WE
CAN TO FIX THIS PROBLEM!!! THIS IS IT! OUR BACKS ARE AGAINST THE WALL! IT'S
NOW OR NEVER! THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, GET OFF OF YOUR BUTTS NOW! HAS A
CENTRIFUGAL MOMENTUM ANALYSIS OF THE LAND MASSES AND ICE CAPS BEEN EVALUATED
AS ALBERT EINSTEIN RECOMMENDED? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE EVERYTHING THERE IS EXISTING TO FIX THIS. WE ARE
THE ONE'S WHO WILL BE LEFT OUT HERE NOT YOU!

THREAT OF GLOBAL ANNIHILATION SUPERSEDES NATIONAL SECURITY!



So now that I have that out of my system, I don't know what kind of book you
are writing Ross but I represent an artist who created an impressive
collection of Tall Ship illustrations at the site linked in my signiture
below. A few low res images are ok to use if you can reference our site with
mention of licensing options for the collection. Use of full resolution
illustrations will require a small royalty but you'd have access to 40
different tall ship images. I also use Autocad R14 and 3DStudio MAX 2.5 to
create 3D rendered bitmaps. I can model anything in 3D and render it to
photorealistic quality.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 16:01:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA11184;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:00:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:00:21 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b26a8a8f6ee4 [12.72.131.70]>
In-Reply-To: <199811072046.OAA20371 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:57:03 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SETI Institute "Refutation" of "Paul Dore's" Alleged SETI Hit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5lFxS.0.gk2.KyDHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24280
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  One very clear-cut approach to dealing
   >  with it in a scientific manner is to simply acquire one of the
   >  old 12 or 14 foot--the larger the better--satellite dishes,
   >  and begin a systematic search of the coordinates in the
   >  vicinity of the sun, beginning of course near EQ Pegasi, and
   >  see if the signal is there or not. A sufficient number of
   >  amateur sightings would clinch this eventually, despite any
   >  continued denials from those controlling government owned
   >  radiotelescopes.

IMHO this is the only worthwhile approach at this point.

   >  By "real experimental data" I assume you are referring to
   >  the data supplied from government controlled sources, and
   >  by "rumor and hoax," I assume you are referring to data
   >  from private sources. Does that sum it up?

If it did, there'd never be any data at any time that could be trusted, so
we're back to zero and there we'd stay no matter what. I was referring to
the Australian radio telescope reports. And maybe the Aricebo hit back
April or whenever it was. Those are the only ones on this whole EQ Pegasi
mess that can be given *some* credibility at this point. The rest you can
mull over and wonder what it means, but as useful data points, they aren't.

I'm willing to drop this subject until something new and worthwhile shows
up. Never before has so little signal used up so much bandwidth! <g>

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 17:07:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24274;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:03:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:03:23 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981108011049.00e295d8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 20:10:49 -0500
To: b25b LCIA.COM
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Patent Information
Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"9Jioy3.0.Cx5.RtEHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24281
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:07 PM 11/7/98 -0500, you wrote:

>  Patents are not for the little guy. If your patent is any good
>  anybody can sue for infringing on his wahing machine patent. When
>  he loses, he can keep appealing until you run out of money. This
>is an extreme example, but you get the point. It would cost far less
>to market the product and you would be far ahead financialy.

The patent was for the real estate agent to defend. The agent found the bike
design interesting enough to want to 'trade plans'.


One might consider prosecuting the patent without a lawyer. This is an
awesome story:

http://www.gis.net/~imagine/myshare/index.html


What type of product did you market?



Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 17:08:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA25449;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:07:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:07:50 -0800
Message-ID: <004e01be0ab3$e3a7c7c0$ac4bccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about RF & Lasers
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:48:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"770_v2.0.VD6.cxEHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24282
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jim Ostrowski said:

>I have a question. I hope to get some kind of easy to follow non
>mathematical approximation of how one would go about greating a radio
>emission with the extremely
>narrow beamwidth qualities of a laser.
>
>I take it there is something quite different going on when "collimating"
>a radio beam with say a parabolic reflecting antenna (satellite dish)
>and the quantum mechanical
>activity which creates a laser beam.

There are two phenomena here, not related. The first, Jim's question, is how
do you get a narrow beam at
radio frequencies, and the second is the amplifying process in the laser and
maser. The beamwidth of an electromagentic radiator (radio, microwave,
light)(also acoustic) has everything to do with the radiating aperture
diameter, (length, in the direction of propagation, is irrelevant) measured
in wavelengths of the frequency of the radiated signal. You can
verify this with a geometrical construction, no math, but it gets tedious.
The reason lasers can make nice tight beams is primarily that the wavelength
is  very small compared to the radiating aperture of the laser, and
secondarily  that the generated light is monochromatic. If you shine a laser
through a very small pinhole, the emerging beam will spread.

If you want a tight radio beam, the antenna must be very large. It happens
that radio telescopes can have effective resolutions greater than optical
telescopes because signals picked up on opposite sides of the earth can be
combined in a way that make the effective diameter of the telescope the size
of the earth. To pull this trick requires that the received signals at each
telescope are recorded against a very stable atomic clock timebase such that
the phase information is preserved. Then a computer can operate on the two
signals to create a very large effective aperture. This method was used to
make the highly detailed radar maps of the surface of Venus.

Mike Carrell
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 17:28:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA30785;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:27:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:27:35 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:27:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199811080127.RAA19356 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Question about RF & Lasers
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jl5fF2.0.xW7.7EFHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24283
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>Yes. I didn't actually think there was any magic involved, Ross , but
>since  lasers were once considered for SETI signalling purposes 


LIGO will be a much better SETI "antenna".  If any intelligent life is out
there trying to send signals, then they will do so by modulating the output
of a nuclear reactor.  That should distort spacetime via sending what will
one day be called essentially a gravitational wave.  But this is not the
same quadrature type of wave found from orbiting binaries for example.

This is the same sort of wave I expect us to find coming from the sun.  The
difference would be, one would modulate the reactivity in binary code fasion
sort of like in "Contact", or some such signal.

Actually, the most obvious signal that a new species has come of age will be
the shock front sent through spacetime when those idiots detonate their
first nuclear weapons.  Mass to space conversion (ie aether emission from
fusion reactions) should send a shock front like gravitational wave through
the surrounding spacetime.  It ought to have a characteristic signal if you
have detectors to monitor it.  Sort of "spacetime ripple" version of
seismometers.

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 18:59:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA21121;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:56:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:56:01 -0800
Message-ID: <36450944.3B78 lcia.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:00:20 -0500
From: B25B LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN)
Reply-To: b25b LCIA.COM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
CC: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Patent Information
References: <1.5.4.32.19981108011049.00e295d8 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HQXsf2.0.t95.0XGHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24284
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> 
> Hi;
> 
> At 04:07 PM 11/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >  Patents are not for the little guy. If your patent is any good
> >  anybody can sue for infringing on his wahing machine patent. When
> >  he loses, he can keep appealing until you run out of money. This
> >is an extreme example, but you get the point. It would cost far less
> >to market the product and you would be far ahead financialy.
> 
> The patent was for the real estate agent to defend. The agent found the bike
> design interesting enough to want to 'trade plans'.
> 
> One might consider prosecuting the patent without a lawyer. This is an
> awesome story:
> 
> http://www.gis.net/~imagine/myshare/index.html
> 
> What type of product did you market?
> 
  I didn't have any money left to market it. That's my point
  This happened about 20 years ago.
  Ron Brennen
> 
> 
> Tall Ships
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 19:16:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA26451;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:15:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:15:22 -0800
Message-ID: <36450DBC.445B earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 20:19:24 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue: Murray: 1993 Storms report  11.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YVomd3.0.DT6.ApGHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24285
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: CF debate, Storms 1993 report
11.6.98
      Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:13:12 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Rich Murray comments: I don't have this 1993 Storms report yet, but from
> his 1996 "Review of the "Cold Fusion: Effect", the bibliography seems to
> indicate that two papers are essentially the same report:
> 
> "Measurements of Excess Heat From a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic
> Cell", Frontiers of Cold Fusion, Nagoya, Japan October 21-25, 1992, p.
> 21. Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, and
> 
> "Measurements of Excess Heat From a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic
> Cell Using Palladium Sheet (1993) Fusion Technology, 23, 230.
> 
> Storms next paper is "Some Characteristic of Heat Production Using the
> "Cold Fusion" Effect," [from ICCF-4, Maui, Dec. 6-9, 1993] (Dec.,1994)
> Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 96.  I have this one.
> 
> The 1996 Review on page 6 summarizes the 1992 data:  1.1 MJ total excess
> heat from start of run, 0.17 MJ/cm2 [giving a cathode area 6.5 cm2],
> 7.5 W maximum excess power, 1.1 W/cm2 maximum excess power [giving a
> cathode area of 6.8 cm2].  The same kind of data is given for Pd+D cells
> by 30 teams.  As in Storms own 1994 report, no excess powers are
> expressed as a percentage of input power, and the input powers are not
> given, which makes it very hard for me to assess what might be going on.
> Storms 1 cm X 2 cm cathode gives an area, including the edge, of 4.6
> cm2.
> 
> Storms 1994 report is about another cathode, Batch No. 4, charged with D
> in 0.4 M LiOD at 20 mA/cm2, until the D/Pd ratio became constant at 0.84
> after 9 hours.
> 
> "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 exceed 0.5 watt.
> Details of the calorimeter design and the calibration methods are
> described in reference 1 [reference is his first report, 1992]."

The +-4% error is the variation between calibration runs during this
study.  Other, more recent studies, have shown a smaller variation. It
is not the error relative to the applied power.  While increased applied
power does produce increased random variations with time, these are
averaged and only a net, long-term change is attributed to an excess.
Only if this long-term change exceeds 0.5 W is an excess claimed. 
Normally, the excess exceeds this threshold by a large amount.
 
> However, I notice in Figure 1, that at 0.1 A current, the excess power
> fluctuates at 0.0 W +-0.4 W, from hours 693 to 714, twice the random
> variations mentioned just above, with peak excess powers of ~2.2 W at
> hours 703, 709, 715 at 2.5 A current.  No excess heat was found during
> the previous hours in the almost 30-day run.  "After 575 hrs, excess
> heat was observed following the addition of 28 ppm of aluminum to a new
> electrolytic solution."  The Al compound and its concentration are not
> given.
 
The Al was added as 2 mg of aluminum foil

 >McKubre claimed that Al would facilitate excess heat, but I am
> not aware that this effect has been replicated.  

Yes, several people have tried this with some success.  It does not
always work if the palladium is especially bad.

>Anyway, it took 118
> hours, from 575 to 699 hours for the first excess heat, ~1 W at 1.0 A
> current to appear.  The input powers are not given, nor any percentages
> for excess power.  However, page 98 mentions using "Up to 40 watts of
> applied power..." in testing the calorimeter.  The peak excess power of
> ~2.2 W is about 5% of 40 W and 11% of 20 W.  Recall the above quote:

Note my comment above.

> "The total uncertainty in the measured heat value is about +-4%."
> "The charging behavior was similar to that produced by Batch #1 which
> produced significant excess heat [reference is his first report, 1992]."
> 
> It appears that recombiner failure does not explain these excess heats,
> which appear in the final day of a 30 day run, according to Fig. 1 in
> the 1994 report.  McKubre found deposits of silica from his glass cells
> coated his cathodes.  The role of impurities in generating small excess
> heat artifacts can only be settled by close examination of the cell and
> its components, and thorough chemical analysis of the electrolyte and
> the electrodes before, during, and after excess heat.  The role of
> bubbles, suds, foams, and gels would have to be settled.  Just what
> might be the effect of increased joule heating at high current levels,
> and would there be increased bubbling, increased production of bubbles
> coating the electrodes, or disruption of existing bubble layers?  The
> possibilites for subtle artifacts are myriad.  Does the aluminum
> compound form a gel?  Were rapid fluctuations in resistance causing the
> input electric power to be underestimated?

I appreciate Rich's curiosity about the effect of these impurities and
the effect of bubbles.  These artifacts need to be understood to fully
understand how the critical composition can be achieved.  However, they
do not impact on the claims for excess energy.  These effects introduce
small errors or possible variations in energy which are very small
compared to what is measured.  In addition, most of these effects will
use energy, not produce it. The only net energy producer is the
dissolution of Si from the Pyrex by the electrolyte.  The amount of this
reaction is too small to be important.  

The aluminum does not form a gel.  As power is increased, input power
does fluctuate. Although power is sampled frequently and averaged over
several minutes, random error does increase.  However, it is hard to see
how an offset in the measurements could be introduced.  Even if a bias
were introduced, the same bias would occur when the same power was
applied during calibration, and be subtracted when excess power was
calculated.  Furthermore, there is no process I can imagine that would
relate this suggested bias with the deuterium content of the cathode or
cause a delay in its occurrence.

By the way, are you going to post my reply to the comments of Blue dated
31 Oct. 1998 11:29:50?    Ed Storms 

Rich Murray: Oops!  I overlooked that one...Sorry!  Just sent it to
all.  What percentages of excess heat did you find in your 1993 report,
and what were the input powers?  Did the added Al foil dissolve, and
how?  What were the temperature changes in the electrolyte from O.1 to
1.0 to 2.5 A input current?  How rapid were resistance, voltage, and
current fluctuations, before, during, and after excess power?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 19:30:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29957;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:28:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:28:35 -0800
Message-ID: <36451097.23A3 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 20:31:35 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue: CF debate  10.31.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pdNMm3.0._J7.Y_GHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24286
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:    Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate 10.31.98
      Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:47:59 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Dear Rich et al,
Reply by Storms to Blue

> Next question, of course, is where in the energy spectrum does the
> Compton edge due to 60Co gamma rays lie with respect to the stated
> neutron energies?  The answer may surprise you, but it's not really
> significant to my main point -- namely that neutron energies that cannot
> be accounted for may not, if fact, be real.  Nothing Takahashi does
> establishes that the detector response is 100% due to neutrons.  In fact
> he could not use a gamma source for calibration if the detector did
> not response to gammas, right?  My ball-park number, which I stick
> by, is that electronic rejection using the method Takahashi employed
> is only 99% efficient.  So what I suggest is that some of the response
> is due to neutrons, and that would likely be confirmed by the He3
> detector.  However, the signal that Takahashi suggests is higher energy
> neutrons may well be something else -- i.e. gamma rays or muons, etc.
> What is needed are some very long runs for background determination with
> the cold fusion turned off.  Are those spectra total blanks?  I think
> not.

If you will note of figure 8 in my review (Infinite Energy or the copy I
sent you), you will see a comparison between the signal and background. 
The greatest difference between signal and background is at 4.5 MeV with
a very minor difference at 7 MeV and a somewhat greater one at 2.45 MeV.
Takahashi notes that this difference is only seen when excess energy is
being produced. I think you are running out of wiggle room. 

> Yes, there were two methods employed for part of the measurements, but
> if you read the paper carefully you will learn that the crucial claims
> for variations in activity all derive from just the Geiger counter
> measurement!

Yes, but both detectors showed the same behavior when they were
compared.  The GM counter was then used for convenience. Even if the GM
counter is not detecting electrons directly, it is detecting something
which is proportional to the electron current. I do not see why this
would be a problem.
 
> Read carefully these words "sealed from the atmosphere by a bubbler."
> We are supposed to believe that some liquid (unspecified) forms an
> effective seal against helium while bubbles of evolving gas constantly
> disrupt that seal.  The point Ed Storms, as well as Miles and Bush,
> continue to overlook, is that sealing against leakage by helium is much
> more demanding than sealing against nitrogen, for example.  What appears
> to be a gas-tight seal may actually leak helium like a sieve.

The liquid was specified as vacuum pump oil. A stream of gas was
constantly flushing the system.  Consequently, any helium that might
enter was being flushed out. When no excess heat was produced, the
helium content of the gas was always close to the detection limit.  The
work of Bush, which supports Miles-Bush, used an all-steel system and a
more sensitive mass spectrometer.  As a result the He background was
smaller. Nevertheless, a significant He signal was always seen when
excess heat was measured. Bush used an entirely different kind of
calorimeter as well. Why do you presume that Miles, Bush and I continue
to overlook the possibility of He leaks.  This is an obvious problem
which has been handled very well by the experimenters.  It is only Blue
who insists this possibility is real in the face of facts to the
contrary. 

> However, what I think I am establishing is that your reviews aren't
> sufficiently critical when it comes to the details of the experiments.
> At best we could expect you to spot the inconsistent claims that have
> long characterized this field, but I am not sure you even do that.

First of all, have you read my review which I sent you?  Second, what
you call "inconsistent claims" result as much from your unwillingness to
accept any positive claims as from my lack of critical evaluation. I do
not go into great critical detail in the reviews because they are
designed to give an overview of the field and show where the details can
be found.  As I mentioned in earlier discussions, the cited work contain
a mixture of experimental error, which I address, and results which may
be real and need to be included in our thinking about the field, at
least for a while. The latest review serves two purposes: it is designed
to show the skeptical reader the best of the work and how the obvious
errors have been addressed, and it is designed to show people in the
field some of the new discoveries and understanding. Suggesting unlikely
possibilities, frequently in isolation from what was actually done, does
not constitute a critical evaluation. 

> > We seem to have regressed back to the idea that negative data can offset
> > positive data to produce a net effect.  This idea only applies to random
> > events which CANR is not.  However, I get the idea that Dick still
> > believes we are all deceived by a random process.
> > 
> I don't believe this is a "regression."  There is a proper, logical
> approach to the merging of data sets to form a summary result.  Isn't it
> obviously irrational to discard all the results that you personally
> dislike because they are "negative"?   Isn't it obvious that information
> can be derived from "negative" outcomes that should also be considered
> along with the "positive" results?   I don't want to make meaningless
> generalizations as to who is being deceived or why, but I can cite
> specific examples in the literature which you review where someone is
> clearly being deceived.  I would have more confidence in your reviews if
> you were one of the people who spots the problems with the doubtful or
> bogus CF claims.  Clearly you are not doing that.

Yes, negative data are useful.  However, two problems exist: first, we
are trying to demonstrate what it takes for success, not how to fail;
second, journal editors do not like to publish too much negative data.
As a result, negative information is used to direct research, as is the
case in every field, but it is not normally available to outsiders.
Would you want to see data for every material that was tested for
high-temperature superconductivity before you believe the phenomenon? 

> > an exact comparison can not be made between different studies. All we
> > can use are general patterns of behavior. It is important that we all
> > see the same patterns, regardless of these variables.
> >
> 
> OK, so we are dealing with a phenomenon that is too variable to make
> replication in detail possible.  I believe that is a very important
> observation about CF claims, and it means that extra precautions are in
> order in such addressing of the statistical aspects of the data.  You
> can't just plow ahead using methods that are appropriate only for data
> that is rather more well behaved.  When someone uses a phrase like
> "general patterns of behavior", special precautions
> should be taken to insure that the "patterns" are not just an artifact
> being introduced during the data reduction process.

Yes, Dick is correct. But to see the patterns, you must first take the
trouble to examine the data as if it were free of error. Gradually, as
the pattern becomes more robust, some of the data outside of the pattern
can be examined for error to see if they are worthy of supporting a new
pattern. This is a very gray area requiring holding different levels of
opinion at the same time. Someone who thinks the phenomenon is nonsense
in the first place would naturally think all positive results are caused
by error, hence all patterns are the result of random variations.  This
being the general view, it is very hard to use the available data to
make a case.  Of course, this is why important discoveries are only made
by a few people - ones who have the mental tools to use this process.

> > No, I will not acknowledge facts that do not apply to the conditions of
> > the present experiments.  In addition, having accepted the fact that
> > CANR does occur, the established facts you would use do not seem to
> > explain the observations.  You only use them to show that the
> > observations can not be true. On the other hand, if you accepted CANR,
> > you would choose a different set of facts, and we could have a good
> > debate about how this new collection applies.
> > >
> 
> But we have to ask a very key question here.  How is it that Ed Storms
> justifies his bald assertion that certain facts "do not apply to the
> conditions of the present experiment"?  That is clearly just an excuse
> to discard data that Ed Storms cannot address any other way.  I can, of
> course, make a different choice as to what I decide does not apply to
> the conditions of the present experiment.  I can decide, for example,
> that calorimeters do not work as expected because the laws of
> thermodynamics do not apply to the PdD lattice.  I, however, do not
> operate that way. I want to insist that the fundamental physics we all
> know and love still is applicable unless and until we have compelling
> evidence to the contrary. I will not buy into vague notions about
> "special conditions" on the basis of poorly controlled calorimetric
> measurements alone.  If you want to accumulate tons of "supportive"
> evidence you are, in essence, calling for a majority vote.  I just say
> you then cannot justify a simple discard of all the "Nays".

No, I am not suggesting we reject "fundamental physics we all know and
love".  I, for one, believe that the thermochemical laws are operating
and should not be rejected either. The problem is that something new may
be operating which is outside of the laws we all know and love. Everyone
agrees that the claims are in conflict with accepted understanding. Dick
wants to use this fact as a reason to reject the claims. On the other
hand, while I do not want to reject "all we know and love", I want to
explore the possibility that other laws not yet discovered may be
operating.  Before anyone would start down this path, they must be
convinced that the claims are basically correct. Rejecting them up front
just because they conflict with present understanding will get us
nowhere. This is the approach always used by skeptics to reject all new
discoveries - indeed the same ones we now accept and are used by Blue to
reject these new claims. Can't we pass through this problem and discuss
the results on their merits without resorting to very unlikely and
generally previously reduced errors to justify rejecting the claims 

> > Yes, the voltage is noisy .  The extent of the variation is severely
> > limited by the low impedance of the power supply (about 0.01 ohm)
> > compared to the higher impedance of the cell (about 10 ohm).  Therefore,
> > the voltage has a random  variation of perhaps 100 mW.  Over a period of
> > time, as the cell conditions change, the average voltage slowly changes,
> > as you surmise. This noise is averaged by many measurements and the
> > drift has no effect because the voltage is measured at regular
> > intervals.
> 
> Ed Storms, shame on you!  You just committed a very big oops!  I hope
> this was just a slip of the bits.  Let's review some basic electrical
> circuit theory.  There are two types of ideal power sources to be
> considered -- an ideal voltage source which maintains a constant voltage
> at its output independent of load, or an ideal current source which
> maintains a constant current from its output independent of the load.  I
> specifically said I was considering "constant current" excitation of the
> electrochemical cell.  That means, I presume, that the power supply is
> operated in the constant current mode.  That power supply darned well
> better not have a low impedance as you suggest.  It should have as high
> an output impedance as can be practically achieved in order to insure
> that the total circuit impedance, supply + cell, is nearly independent
> of the cell portion.
> 
> What you describe is a voltage supply, with low impedance such that
> essentially all the impedance is in the electrochemical cell.  Indeed
> that will maintain the cell voltage constant within +/- 100 mV as
> you suggest.  However, the cell current will not be constant unless the
> cell impedance is constant.  Are you as confused about this as it
> appears?  Perhaps you simply do not know what the power input to your
> cell is.  Please assure us that you know the difference between a
> constant voltage supply and a constant current supply.  Which do you use
> in your experiments?

You are right, I did not explain this very well.  At constant current,
the voltage is free to change by any amount within the capability of the
power supply.  The problem is how fast can this change take place.  The
output of the power supply has a capacitor which prevents rapid changes
in voltage. As a result, as the resistance of the cell changes, both
voltage and current fluctuate, thereby causing the rapid voltage changes
to be damped. Both current and voltage are measured at the cell and the
values are averaged over many readings taken for about a minute.  As a
result, these random fluctuations are averaged and only a net drift in
value is seen. It has been suggested that these random fluctuations are
not properly measured, hence the applied power is in error. If
calibration is done using electrolytic power, the suggested error is
common to both the calibration and the condition of excess power.
Therefore, it will cancel out when the difference is taken. 

Before Dick has a chance to raise this possibility, suppose the amount
of random fluctuation increases as the palladium becomes fully loaded,
i.e. when the supposed special condition forms. Further suppose, the
error caused by these random fluctuations increases in such a way that
the measured applied power is smaller than the actual power.  The result
would be an apparent excess. Actually seen is a gradual increase (not
decrease) in applied voltage (constant current) as loading increases. In
addition, we would have to believe that many different types of power
supplies and data acquisition systems can suffer from this effect and
that palladium is able to initiate this error regardless of its size or
shape, and then only when a critical composition was achieved. The
question is, "How willing are you to accept this remote possibility
instead of accepting the claims for excess energy"?

> Only problem is they did not measure the power input during the boiloff!
> They could only estimate it on the basis of infrequently logged
> measurements. They also did not time the boiloff with sufficient
> precision to determine the actual energy input.  In your reviews did you
> fail to take note of any of the shortcomings of these experiments?  Did
> you not recognize that zero current lies below your assumed threshold
> for CANR such that a dry cell is unlikely to produce any "excess heat"
> as was claimed?

These experiments do have some shortcomings including the ones noted by
Dick. Once boiling is achieved, the power applied to the cell is noted
by a computer readout and the amount of vapor being produced and
collected is recorded. The claim is that, at this time, more water is
being lost as vapor than is justified by the applied power. On the other
hand, problems do exist.  The vapor can contain droplets; the
calorimeter is complex, requiring an uncertain calibration; and the data
published by the experimenters are not sufficiently detailed to allow a
proper evaluation to be made. Attempts to duplicate the work at NHE were
not successful for various reasons.  Consequently, I do not address
these claims in my recent review. They are not useful for demonstrating
the phenomenon to skeptics and they are only interesting because they,
if true, further confirm a positive temperature coefficient.
 
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 20:54:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA13265;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:53:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:53:51 -0800
Message-ID: <36452C1F.6269 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:29:03 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: SETI hoax loose ends (was: Question about RF and Lasers)
References: <199811080127.RAA19356 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RosUA3.0.7F3.UFIHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24287
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> 
> >Yes. I didn't actually think there was any magic involved, Ross , but
> >since  lasers were once considered for SETI signalling purposes
> 
> LIGO will be a much better SETI "antenna".  If any intelligent life is out
> there trying to send signals, then they will do so by modulating the output
> of a nuclear reactor. 

OK.

 That should distort spacetime via sending what will
> one day be called essentially a gravitational wave.

The SETI organization that is presently in place does not appear to be
set up to look for such gravitational waves. They are still expecting
Hertzian RF waves , as I understand the situation. 

Here is what I'm getting at with this: 

The signal that was found by the alleged "Paul Dore" and later observed
down in frequency somewhat by the ATNF was extremely narrow band
centered at 1451 mhz. This monochromatic signal is not the ordinary
characteristic of deep space probes  which typicaly use wide band spread
spectrum technology. This requires recursive processing at the receive
end to eliminate randomly occurring noise pulses , because the recieved
signal is so very weak (space probe transmitters range in the mere tens
of watts) and "down in the mud" as they put it. 

But in this case the ATNF concluded the signal WAS from space and at
least coming from a source only a few degrees off EQ Peg. This signal
was so remarkably strong that evidently  Dr. Norris concluded that it
COULD have been some kind of "Secret" satellite (alleged as "Project
415"). 

Setting the conspiracy issue aside for the monment then and
acknowledging that the geocities site was probably put up by a  hoaxter
(working to whose benefit being another question) I wonder about the
possible sources of the siganl that was observed. 

It makes sense to me that if one were to use Hertzian type waves for
SETI , the tightest beam possible is monochramatic in nature , single
frequency which is exactly what was reported for the EQ Pegasi source. 
Parabolic reflectors at RF observatories are designed to monitor a wide
range of frequencies, not a single, specific frequency.

By the same argument I wonder as well if our single frequency
transmission source was necesarily a parabolic dish . Why not an RF
version of a laser?

What if the downshift of frequency was an artifact of the modulation
mode? For a narrow band source this would make sense too, wouldn't it?  

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov  7 23:22:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA12059;
	Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:22:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:22:01 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981108072904.00e8cbd8 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: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 02:29:04 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate  10.31.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y1V572.0.Hy2.PQKHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24288
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

I was wondering, if I write something on your messages, do you guys see what
I write? Well, I'll assume the answer is yes for now and continue on.
Actually, I wrote an opinion a while back of why I wasn't anxious to spend
much time thinking about this CF stuff much, but I saw a few things on my
first scan of this message that I think I would like to write a thing or two
about.


At 08:31 PM 11/7/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:
>Subject:    Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate 10.31.98
>      Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:47:59 +0000
>      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>        To: rmforall earthlink.net
>
>Dear Rich et al,
>Reply by Storms to Blue

(snip)

>First of all, have you read my review which I sent you?  Second, what
>you call "inconsistent claims" result as much from your unwillingness to
>accept any positive claims as from my lack of critical evaluation. I do
>not go into great critical detail in the reviews because they are
>designed to give an overview of the field and show where the details can
>be found.  As I mentioned in earlier discussions, the cited work contain
>a mixture of experimental error, which I address, and results which may
>be real and need to be included in our thinking about the field, at
>least for a while. The latest review serves two purposes: it is designed
>to show the skeptical reader the best of the work and how the obvious
>errors have been addressed, and it is designed to show people in the
>field some of the new discoveries and understanding. Suggesting unlikely
>possibilities, frequently in isolation from what was actually done, does
>not constitute a critical evaluation. 
>
>> > We seem to have regressed back to the idea that negative data can offset
>> > positive data to produce a net effect.  This idea only applies to random
>> > events which CANR is not.  However, I get the idea that Dick still
>> > believes we are all deceived by a random process.
>> > 
>> I don't believe this is a "regression."  There is a proper, logical
>> approach to the merging of data sets to form a summary result.  Isn't it
>> obviously irrational to discard all the results that you personally
>> dislike because they are "negative"?   Isn't it obvious that information
>> can be derived from "negative" outcomes that should also be considered
>> along with the "positive" results?   I don't want to make meaningless
>> generalizations as to who is being deceived or why, but I can cite
>> specific examples in the literature which you review where someone is
>> clearly being deceived. 

Negativeness, evil, black stick to your soul energy, what have you, is a
conscious effort to make one's perception of reality something other than
what is truely and really there in absolute terms. It's basically messing up
the positive, consistant, integrity of the space time fabric. This kind of
knowledge is only mentioned in higher levels of eastern philosophy so it is
rare to meet anyone who has even heard of such ideas nevermind trying to
understand and actively live by them.

An outcome of an experiment, that doesn't collaborate, or even contradicts,
one's basic overall theory model defining experiment parameters, is not
'negative' data. It is new data, that is inspected for accuracy, and with
accuracy verified, used to modify or change the basic overall theory model
to account for this new data, as well as all valid previous data. This new
basic overall theory model is then checked for accuracy in predicting the
outcome of future experiments. This cycle is repeated until: no theory model
works, in which case more intensive and extensive basic research is called
for. Or, the theory stands the test of time in actually  predicting
experimental results. Then it can be considered the right answer of course.

>I would have more confidence in your reviews if
>> you were one of the people who spots the problems with the doubtful or
>> bogus CF claims.  Clearly you are not doing that.

I think that if one is occupied with suspicion reviewing data, it is because
one does not trust the source of the data. If one knows the experimental
proceedure, and knows that the proceedure was performed as specified, and
knows that the results of the experiment was correctly recorded and
delivered to the reviewer true to form, this would be a wonderful world
wouldn't it? The reason for distrust is negative black evil acts (that
sticks to one's life force!).

When one's mind is on the above frame of referance, there is not enough
consciousness left to simultaniously consider, evaluate, intercorrelate, and
finally understand, all the important facts, data, and parameters in a
unifying, global, picture. The Eureka Moment!

So, step one is work with people as trust worthy as possible or evil black
energy will surface in unexpected places usually appearing as a 'randomness'
event (you don't know that you don't know) ultimately because of a really
stupid reason or other.

Another source of 'randomness' in experiments involving higher dimensional
energy are variables in local environment that are too subtle for mainstream
analysis instumentation to detect, yet affect the experiment in a very real way.


>Yes, negative data are useful.  However, two problems exist: first, we
>are trying to demonstrate what it takes for success, not how to fail;
>second, journal editors do not like to publish too much negative data.
>As a result, negative information is used to direct research, as is the
>case in every field, but it is not normally available to outsiders.
>Would you want to see data for every material that was tested for
>high-temperature superconductivity before you believe the phenomenon? 

The stuff you guys are saying is so familiar I'd almost think you were
reading some of my stuff? Anyways, I have not seen high temp
superconductivity in person mainly because discovery of monatomic transition
elements has been a recent event. Also, David Hudson's new plant sprung an
acid leak and the big orange cloud caused a local town to be evacuated. I've
followed Hudson's work for almost three years with diligence because I
invested to help him build the plant. Hudson invested $5 million dollars of
his own money on researching monatomics. It started because he wondered
where a good part of the gold existing at the previous stage of processing
dissapeared to when the final refinement process is performed. Old
prospectors call it ghost gold. $5 mil. of R&D later, it was learned that
the transition elements can exist in a high spin monatomic state. In this
state, the electron cloud is football shaped and Cooper paired (photon
instead of electron) so that all normal electromagneticly based analysis
instrumentation would see nothing! Mr. Hudson spent months purifying a
monatomic sample because various spectroscopic methods would detect minute
trace contaminant elements and name that as the composition of the entire
sample. Finally, when the monatomic sample was pure enough, the spectroscopy
lab said that there was nothing there. Of course there was something there
but the machine couldn't see it at all. Mr. Hudson also presents an
impressive amount mainstream physics research to corroborate his own
monatomic research and discoveries.


>> > an exact comparison can not be made between different studies. All we
>> > can use are general patterns of behavior. It is important that we all
>> > see the same patterns, regardless of these variables.
>> >
>> 
>> OK, so we are dealing with a phenomenon that is too variable to make
>> replication in detail possible.  I believe that is a very important
>> observation about CF claims, and it means that extra precautions are in
>> order in such addressing of the statistical aspects of the data.  You
>> can't just plow ahead using methods that are appropriate only for data
>> that is rather more well behaved.  When someone uses a phrase like
>> "general patterns of behavior", special precautions
>> should be taken to insure that the "patterns" are not just an artifact
>> being introduced during the data reduction process.

If subtle environmental energy fields are a factor, how about running the
experiment in duplicate or even triplicate at the same location and at the
same time. The experiment would be thus replicated two or three times.


>Yes, Dick is correct. But to see the patterns, you must first take the
>trouble to examine the data as if it were free of error. Gradually, as
>the pattern becomes more robust, some of the data outside of the pattern
>can be examined for error to see if they are worthy of supporting a new
>pattern. This is a very gray area requiring holding different levels of
>opinion at the same time. Someone who thinks the phenomenon is nonsense
>in the first place would naturally think all positive results are caused
>by error, hence all patterns are the result of random variations.  This
>being the general view, it is very hard to use the available data to
>make a case.  Of course, this is why important discoveries are only made
>by a few people - ones who have the mental tools to use this process.
>
>> > No, I will not acknowledge facts that do not apply to the conditions of
>> > the present experiments.  In addition, having accepted the fact that
>> > CANR does occur, the established facts you would use do not seem to
>> > explain the observations.  You only use them to show that the
>> > observations can not be true. On the other hand, if you accepted CANR,
>> > you would choose a different set of facts, and we could have a good
>> > debate about how this new collection applies.
>> > >
>> 
>> But we have to ask a very key question here.  How is it that Ed Storms
>> justifies his bald assertion that certain facts "do not apply to the
>> conditions of the present experiment"?  That is clearly just an excuse
>> to discard data that Ed Storms cannot address any other way.  I can, of
>> course, make a different choice as to what I decide does not apply to
>> the conditions of the present experiment.  I can decide, for example,
>> that calorimeters do not work as expected because the laws of
>> thermodynamics do not apply to the PdD lattice.  I, however, do not
>> operate that way. I want to insist that the fundamental physics we all
>> know and love still is applicable unless and until we have compelling
>> evidence to the contrary. I will not buy into vague notions about
>> "special conditions" on the basis of poorly controlled calorimetric
>> measurements alone.  If you want to accumulate tons of "supportive"
>> evidence you are, in essence, calling for a majority vote.  I just say
>> you then cannot justify a simple discard of all the "Nays".
>
>No, I am not suggesting we reject "fundamental physics we all know and
>love".  I, for one, believe that the thermochemical laws are operating
>and should not be rejected either. The problem is that something new may
>be operating which is outside of the laws we all know and love. Everyone
>agrees that the claims are in conflict with accepted understanding. Dick
>wants to use this fact as a reason to reject the claims. On the other
>hand, while I do not want to reject "all we know and love", I want to
>explore the possibility that other laws not yet discovered may be
>operating.

Has anyone seen any other written definition for Dissociation Energy (De)?
Any comments on the following?


MESSAGE TO: Robin van Spaandonk
FROM: Dennis Lee

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


>>>>Physical Chemistry 1965 Pergamon Press p 418
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
>>>>
>>>>The energy of dissociation, De, of a diatomic molecule is the difference
>>>>between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and
>>>>their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation."
>>>>
>>>>Please correct me if I miss interpret this. Does the above definition say
>>>>that De is the potential energy of atomic hydrogen. Not the PE of H2?
>>>
>>>IMO this says that the dissociation energy is as Scott Little
>>>described. Potential energy, is always the energy of one state
>>>relative to the energy of another state. The above description
>>>describes which two states are being compared. Note also that at their
>>>"equilibrium separation", they comprise a molecule of H2.
>>
>>When the atoms combine, the potential energy is released. The potential
>>energy is from the atoms as entrained ether converted to ZPE when radius
>>decreases on recombination. Ground state is atomic hydrogen. 
>
>No, actually the ground state is lower than atomic hydrogen, by 4-5
>eV. Atomic hydrogen in the ground state, describes the situation after
>the molecule has been dissociated into atoms.
>
>>Recombination energy is not the dissociation energy.
>
>In order to demonstrate this, you need to show why you believe the
>dissociation-recombination process is asymmetrical. In your terms, you
>need to show why the amount of aether released upon recombination is
>greater than the amount absorbed upon dissociation.
>[snip]

The hydrogen atom expands and contracts to absorb and release the same
amount of ZPE. This ZPE amount, should not be confused with the energy
required to 'click' the atoms together as well as 'unclick' the atoms apart.


>Check out: http://users.bigpond.net.au/Ultra-High-Temp-BECs for 
>how CF depends on temperature.

I checked you page out. It looks like alot of careful thought went into it.
With all due respect, there was a famous MIT professor at the CF conferance
in Cambridge MA about 4 years ago. He had the lattice and related distances
and diameters figured everywhich way. It took him two hours to explain the
reason why fusion isn't possible in any way because of the geometry and
distances involved. Anyways, IE probably has a paper on it. I forget his
name but Gene should remember because the guy showed a clip of his CF movie.
Thought you might be interested in his paper.


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


> Before anyone would start down this path, they must be
>convinced that the claims are basically correct. Rejecting them up front
>just because they conflict with present understanding will get us
>nowhere. This is the approach always used by skeptics to reject all new
>discoveries - indeed the same ones we now accept and are used by Blue to
>reject these new claims. Can't we pass through this problem and discuss
>the results on their merits without resorting to very unlikely and
>generally previously reduced errors to justify rejecting the claims 


If I see one verified undeniable contradictory fact to my theory, I modify
or change the theory so that the new data is accomodated with maintained
consistancy in logic. Or, I work on something else. But I keep the issues of
the previous experiment in the back of my mind, until solutions to the the
associated difficulties instinctively work themselves out seemingly
effortlessly. (Euraka Moment material)


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 01:58:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00095;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 01:57:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 01:57:22 -0800
From: Joemar77 aol.com
Message-ID: <3591ab72.36456ad8 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:56:40 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Fwd: EQ Pegasi SETI hoax]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49
Resent-Message-ID: <"1MP2j1.0.O1.1iMHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24289
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well James What do you think?
Was it real or was it fake?
I think its real.
Take care

Joe 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 02:26:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA03792;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 02:25:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 02:25:37 -0800
Message-ID: <02f701be0b01$ad159c20$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 03:21:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"FTMPP2.0.Ax.X6NHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24290
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Norman Horwood's mention of greater orifice erosion using high purity water
Might be explained by the centrifugal concentration of Deuterium atoms or
Deuterium-containing molecules in the water:

If there are vortices created,then Fc = mv^2/r
which would act like a "Calutron" centrifugal isotope
separator/concentrator.

With heavier molecular species/ions present,this effect would be less. With
a "bubble/vortex" radius r in the micrometer range, deuterons or
deuteron-containing water molecules DHO etc.,at modest velocities v would
easily separate from H2O and concentrate at boundaries such as in the Griggs
Pump.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 04:57:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA22152;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:55:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:55:25 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26b438fe049 [208.228.222.33]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:01:40 -0900
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: 1993 Storms report  11.7.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"LhEUv3.0.2Q5.yIPHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24291
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:19 PM 11/7/98, Rich Murray wrote:
>Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: CF debate, Storms 1993 report
>11.6.98
>      Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:13:12 +0000
>      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>        To:  rmforall earthlink.net
[snip]
>
>> However, I notice in Figure 1, that at 0.1 A current, the excess power
>> fluctuates at 0.0 W +-0.4 W, from hours 693 to 714, twice the random
>> variations mentioned just above, with peak excess powers of ~2.2 W at
>> hours 703, 709, 715 at 2.5 A current.  No excess heat was found during
>> the previous hours in the almost 30-day run.  "After 575 hrs, excess
>> heat was observed following the addition of 28 ppm of aluminum to a new
>> electrolytic solution."  The Al compound and its concentration are not
>> given.
>
>The Al was added as 2 mg of aluminum foil
>
> >McKubre claimed that Al would facilitate excess heat, but I am
>> not aware that this effect has been replicated.


I have done various electrolytic experiments showing "excess heat" when
using aluminum foil electrodes.  It was an artifact due to the oxidation of
the aluminum.  The heat of combustion for Al is 399,000 cal/g mole, or
7200,00 BTU/lb mole.   With atomic weight of 26.98154 the energy is 14,800
cal/g, or about 62000 J/g.  The 2 mg of foil note above could thus produce
124 J of heat, which spread over the 22 hours observed, from hours 693 to
714, would appear to be 5.6 W of "excess heat".

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 05:06:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23988;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 05:05:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 05:05:43 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26b47e6e554 [208.228.222.155]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:12:00 -0900
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: 1993 Storms report  11.7.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"TfwZw3.0.gs5.cSPHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24292
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry! Please disregard prior message.  I should read before clicking "send".

I just wrote:

"I have done various electrolytic experiments showing "excess heat" when
using aluminum foil electrodes.  It was an artifact due to the oxidation of
the aluminum.  The heat of combustion for Al is 399,000 cal/g mole, or
7200,00 BTU/lb mole.   With atomic weight of 26.98154 the energy is 14,800
cal/g, or about 62000 J/g.  The 2 mg of foil note above could thus produce
124 J of heat, which spread over the 22 hours observed, from hours 693 to
714, would appear to be 5.6 W of "excess heat"."

I forgot to covert hours to seconds!  This reduces the watts due to
aluminum oxidation to 1/3600 the above value, or to about 1.5 mW over the
22 hours.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 05:33:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28731;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 05:32:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 05:32:37 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981108083523.007f1bc0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 08:35:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: 1993 Storms report  11.7.98
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b26b47e6e554 [208.228.222.155]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4F_TL1.0.r07.rrPHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24293
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 04:12 AM 11/8/98 -0900, Horace Heffner  wrote:
>"I have done various electrolytic experiments showing "excess heat" when
>using aluminum foil electrodes.  It was an artifact due to the oxidation of
>the aluminum.  The heat of combustion for Al is 399,000 cal/g mole, or
>7200,00 BTU/lb mole.   With atomic weight of 26.98154 the energy is 14,800
>cal/g, or about 62000 J/g.  The 2 mg of foil note above could thus produce
>124 J of heat, which spread over the 22 hours observed, from hours 693 to
>714, would appear to be 5.6 W of "excess heat"."
>
>I forgot to covert hours to seconds!  This reduces the watts due to
>aluminum oxidation to 1/3600 the above value, or to about 1.5 mW over the
>22 hours.


  First, it seems unlikely that 1.5 mWatts (usually within the noise
level of most systems) would account for what was observed
when Al is added to Pd/D2O/Pt systems.

  Second, the Al in Pd systems, and Au in Ni systems, as we have
shown, work by a different mechanism whereby the hydrogen
isotopes become trapped in the Group VIII metals by these materials
added after the beginning of loading.
      ^^^^^

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 06:21:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA05637;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:21:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:21:02 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981108092352.008002a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 09:23:52 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES (v.7, number 1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dYaIJ3.0.xN1.EZQHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24294
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Vorts:

 MOST RECENT ISSUE of the COLD FUSION TIMES [Winter 1998-99] 

The Cold Fusion Times Web site is being updated 
(the front page will available on web page 
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html 
next week shortly after the issue (v.7, number 1) is mailed out. 
 
=================================================== 

The Winter 1998-99 issue (Volume 7, number 1) of the COLD FUSION TIMES 
is on the way to the printer.  This issue focuses on nuclear ash and
emission studies. 
>From the generation of Terbium de novo to the use of heterostructures and 
palladium oxides, this issue covers developments worldwide. 

Impacts of hydride desorption to product characteristics for both gas
loaded and 
electrolytically loaded nickel and palladium systems are discussed. 
 
  BRIEF SUMMARY OF ISSUE - CF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 
Cold Fusion Reports from China, Japan, Russia, USA, and elsewhere 
Engineering and Research Update 
Thin Film Systems 
Nuclear Emissions and Ash Measurements 
More on Heterostructures including PdO systems 
More Techniques for Elucidation of Nuclear Ash 
de novo Isotopic Synthesis 
Nuclear Products in gas and electrolytically loaded D/PD  and  H/PD systems 
Historical Essays 
Ten Year Reviews of Cold Fusion 
Elemental Distributions on Cathodes 
Carbon Arcing, Tube and Film Systems 
Glow Discharge Systems 
New Fusion Systems 
Other Material Science and Surface Studies 
Practical Information and Reference Vectors 
 More journal articless which you may have missed 
Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available 
"What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" and more 
Debating Cold Fusion 
The best of the world's literature 

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

    Those either seriously interested in the cold fusion literature, 
will find additional info available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html 
and http://kemi.aau.dk/~db/ 

    Mitchell Swartz 



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 06:34:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09069;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:33:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:33:27 -0800
From: Geosas aol.com
Message-ID: <719229c1.3645aaeb aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:30:03 EST
To: Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au, Seth_Shostak@seti.org
Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: EQ Peg hoax: positions checked
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i  for Windows sub 164
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA09053
Resent-Message-ID: <"9EII12.0.dD2.skQHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24295
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In a message dated 05/11/98  02:19:46,  Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au writes:

<< 
 Sadly, the ATNF non-detection is now being cited as a detection. This story
 refuses to die!
 
 You may be interested in this email from George Sassoon. I haven't checked
 it yet myself, but if
 true, then we should have picked this up earlier!
 
  >>

Ray and Seth -

Browsing around, I found the site
http://members.aol.com/ufoseek/ufoseek.htm

which led me to
http://aol.members.com/ufoseek/CapeCanaveralHall7193/

which is about the "Dore" EQ Peg source.  This site is very
elaborate, with what look like screen prints of the program used
for detection.

The first observation is at 22/10/98 21:13 UTC and the position
observed as RA 23� 31' 48" (sic) and Dec. 9h 55' 58" (also sic).
Of course RA's are given in hms and Dec.'s in dms, and EQ Peg's
Dec. is +19� 56', not 9� 56'. 

On the screen print, it says: El 42  Az 359.

I used a program Distant Suns at the date/time given to view the sky
from the Channel Islands (assumed 49� 30' N 2� 30 W), and pointed
at the nearby star Markab (RA 23h 05m Dec. +15� 07').  EQ Peg is not
in the program's catalog(ue).

The program gave Markab's position as El +55� 37'  Az 181� 26', i.e.
almost due south whereas "Dore"'s equipment had it almost due north.

The second "observation" is on 23/10/98 at 21:17 UTC, i.e. 24 hours and
4 minutes later.  On this occasion the screen print gave El 45  Az 322,
elevation and azimuth differences of 3 and 37 degrees.  This is only 8
minutes later sidereal time than the previous day's "observation" and
the huge azimuth difference is impossible unless the source is chasing
round the sky.

Other observations are given at 26/10/98 05:58 and 27/10/98 07:15.
At these times Distant Suns has Markab el -14 az 315, and el -22
az 335, i.e. it and EQ Peg would have both been well below the
horizon.

You would think that the hoaxers, having taken so much trouble over 
the web sites, would have got their basic astronomy right.

Cheers, George.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 07:49:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23216;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:47:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:47:44 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3645A35C.AD0 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 05:57:48 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.
References: <02f701be0b01$ad159c20$4f8f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"z_FUa2.0.gg5.WqRHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24296
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:

> Norman Horwood's mention of greater orifice erosion using high purity > water

> Might be explained by the centrifugal concentration of Deuterium atoms > or Deuterium- ---

Nuthin fancy, in health notes, they do not advise drinking distilled
water since it tends to dissolve minerals and other good stuff away from
your body when you drink it as opposed to the regular stuff. I.E. pure
water is a fantastic solvent.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 08:47:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12210;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <033101be0b35$209720a0$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:30:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"UBcoF1.0.f-2.vYSHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24297
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: aki ix.netcom.com <aki@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.

Akira wrote:


>Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>
>> Norman Horwood's mention of greater orifice erosion using high purity >
water
>
>> Might be explained by the centrifugal concentration of Deuterium atoms >
or Deuterium- ---
>
>Nuthin fancy, in health notes, they do not advise drinking distilled
>water since it tends to dissolve minerals and other good stuff away from
>your body when you drink it as opposed to the regular stuff. I.E. pure
>water is a fantastic solvent.

My well water does a pretty good job of it too. :-)
The lack of solvated/hydrated ions/colloids probably explains this. Then
again, Jacques Benveniste's "Water Memory" phenomena is also relevant.

Now then, when water goes down the tube it always creates a centrifugal
vortex. Does it do this when forced under pressure through a capillary tube?
IOW, when you do the vector maths,is it natural that drag/torque forces of
a fluid flowing in a conduit create a vortex.

Excuse Me, I'm gonna go flush the toilet, and watch.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>-AK-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 09:26:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA13627;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:23:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:23:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3645D618.31AD4618 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 19:34:16 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax: positions checked (Project 415)
References: <719229c1.3645aaeb aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"EzaAy3.0.mK3.AETHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24298
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geosas aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 05/11/98  02:19:46,  Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au writes:
> 
> <<
>  Sadly, the ATNF non-detection is now being cited as a detection. This story
>  refuses to die!


It seems to me also. In general the story have many of details and branches which can not be discarded easily. One is the "Project 415". Actually it appears a real Gov security project as pointed on UFO UpDates Mailing List 6 Nov, and compatible with the 

scenario.

Information about Project 415 is given on link in the letter.


http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/nov/m06-015.shtml

>>
From: Paul Wittry <ppw3 premier1.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 04:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:17:25 -0500
Subject: Re: 'SETI' Signals From Intelligence Satellite

Hello All,

What is "Project 415"? Surprise, surprise, it's the mighty
'Echelon' system. What's that yoy say? Well, point your browser
at:

http://jya.com/echelon-dc.htm

Where was the "hoax" reported from? Oh, that's right it was
England. Funniest thing, a few months ago there were some
stories circulating on some Members of Parliment wanting to blow
the lid off this "Echelon" system. Hmmmm. . .

Hope this helps,
Paul
<<

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 10:51:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29572;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 10:24:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 10:24:03 -0800
Message-ID: <3645E9FF.12D0 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 10:59:11 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax: positions checked
References: <719229c1.3645aaeb aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9Xewg3.0.-D7.27UHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24299
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geosas aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 05/11/98  02:19:46,  Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au writes:
> 
> <<
>  Sadly, the ATNF non-detection is now being cited as a detection. This story
>  refuses to die!
> 

George,

I'm not sure if this is a response to my recent post "SETI hoax loose
ends(was:Question
about RF and lasers)" 

Dr. Norris' site at:

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/

detected what he called "interference" at 1451 mhz which he surmised was
almost certainly from a terrestrial satellite. This then means that he
thought the interference was NOT originating from ground based sources,
but from space.  

I pointed out in my earlier post, referred to above, that deep space
probes use a wide band transmission mode (spread spectrum) and any
narrow band artifacts from such a transmission would be extremely weak,
nowhere near as prominant as the "interference"
displayed on Norris' website.  

If the source was NOT a deep space probe, one is forced to conjur up
notions of a geosynchronous satellite spewing higher level emissions
closer to the earth . This would not pass muster either however because
geosynchronous satellite emissions pass
VERY quickly across the beam of a stellar coordinate tracking dish such
as employed 
at Radio Astronomy sites. I would think that Dr. Norris could have
easily dismissed 
this possibility as the origin of the "interference" unequivocally. He
did not.

Therefore merely pointing out that the "Dore" website is an obvious
hoax, ridden with inconsistencies , in no way addresses the point of my
recent posting. 

As to the geocities hoax itself, one may ask to who's benefit such an
elaborate ,time consuming effort that obviously went into this would
work. The SETI institute gets credited with exposing the hoax, and
amateur science loses, once again.

I do not wish to reignite the conspiracy discussion again on vortex -
enough of that, let's take it offline if there is anything further . I
have to agree with Rick M. and others who complain about speculations of
this nature being off topic. 

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 11:14:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA09035;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:09:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:09:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3644B63A.4694B353 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 13:06:02 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DFjzM2.0.5D2.WnUHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24300
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vo:

I was just curious, what would you use to search for emissions from ETI,
other than standard hertzian waves? If its simple enough, then for
cryin' out loud, lets build something! ;)

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 11:28:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11693;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:19:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:19:18 -0800
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <2a809b1c.3645ed73 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:13:55 EST
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Virus Hoaxes
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84
Resent-Message-ID: <"jYZ332.0.ds2.swUHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24301
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Tips on how to tell a virus hoax:

1)  There's no source.  For a real virus alert, one should be able to give a
checkable source, e.g., a web page.  If Microsoft had really made an
announcement regarding the alleged WIN A HOLIDAY virus, then there would have
been something about that on Microsoft's website, and very likely a specific
page on their site.

2)  The fake warning doesn't originate from anyone you know, it's just a
forward from some mysterious person you've never heard of before.

3)  The hoax message asks you to forward it to everyone possible, as John
Logajan pointed out.


Here's part of a message I got regarding this WIN A HOLIDAY scare:



"This is a virus hoax. (For confirmation, do an Internet search on "win a
holiday," "virus," and "Microsoft." You'll find lots of Web pages
devoted to this and other hoaxes. This one seems to have been around for
at least six months.)

All the authorities seem to agree: you can't introduce a virus to your
system by opening an E-mail message. You *can* introduce a virus by
opening a file that is attached to an E-mail message. Therefore, the
word seems to be: open any Email message you like--but scan all
attachments, especially if they come from someone you don't know.

Hope this is of use....please correct me if any of my information is
obsolete or just plain wrong."



Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 11:51:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA16350;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:42:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:42:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3645FC76.4863 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 12:17:59 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
References: <3644B63A.4694B353 sunherald.infi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"iXp8k2.0.J_3.uGVHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24302
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> 
> Vo:
> 
> I was just curious, what would you use to search for emissions from ETI,
> other than standard hertzian waves? 

Well Kyle you could ask Ross Tessian for details on this but it seems he
thinks 
"gravitational waves" created by modulating nuclear explosions would fit
the bill.
However I do not see how one could filter out horrendously powerfull
Asteroid impacts
occuring at all times around the galaxy and stellar thermonuclear
reactions themselves from such a "signal". 

>If its simple enough, then for
> cryin' out loud, lets build something! ;)

My Plutonium supply is just not sufficient for such experimentation at
this time, Kyle.
Sorry.

Jim O. >; *)>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 11:52:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17454;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:44:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:44:42 -0800
Message-ID: <036501be0b4f$c3e15900$4f8f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:41:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"dh-j42.0.eG4.fIVHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24303
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 stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 12:10 PM
Subject: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)

Kyle wrote:

>Vo:
>
>I was just curious, what would you use to search for emissions from ETI,
>other than standard hertzian waves? If its simple enough, then for
>cryin' out loud, lets build something! ;)

It's called a RADIO, AM, FM, TV, and SSB spanning kilohertz to gigahertz. If
you find ANY Terrestrial Intelligence (to speak of) on most of it,would you
let me know?  :-)

Regards, Frederick
>
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 13:03:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06627;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:49:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:49:38 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108154742.007ed4b0 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 15:47:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
In-Reply-To: <3644B63A.4694B353 sunherald.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OZIz51.0.2d1.UFWHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24304
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:06 PM 11/07/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Vo:
>
>I was just curious, what would you use to search for emissions from ETI,
>other than standard hertzian waves? If its simple enough, then for
>cryin' out loud, lets build something! ;)
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister

Kyle,

The Government/University sponsored gravity wave detectors are now of very
large size-- and they seem to be getting more numerous. Most of them will
soon be on-line-- and many will be coordinated as phased arrays within 18
to 24 months. They are ostensibly designed to pick up only stellar
(gravity) events, and they cost hundreds of millions of dollars each. The
question is, "Can any of these particular designs detect ETI gravity wave
signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?" 
IMO, the signal to noise level would be horrendous. I personally cannot
conceive of an interstellar communication device that uses less than a
sun's total output as a transmitter, so I believe that this particular
medium must be impossible for the favoured interstellar ETI channels,
[unless some alien science knows how to make a *totally* NON-dispersing
gravity wave transmitter.]

Government - University sponsored gravity wave detectors:
A.)   Interferometer detector projects - ACIGA, GEO, LIGO, TAMA, and VIRGO.
B.)   Acoustic detector projects - ALLEGRO, AURIGA, EXPLORER, NAUTILUS, and
NIOBE.
C.)   Space-based detector projects - LISA.
D.)  Gravitational Wave International Committee GWIC - *recently* formed to
oversee all of the
above.<http://www.cithep.caltech.edu/~donna/GWIC/GWIC_doc1.html>

Colin Q.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 13:37:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19147;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:30:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:30:13 -0800
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 16:26:22 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811081629_MC2-5F8A-3BB compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zwy6x1.0.5h4.brWHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24306
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Here is the data from Ralph Pope from a test on 11/6/98, duration 1 hour 15
minutes:

Input power was 16.6 amps, 200 volts = 3300 watts (3.3 kW). The conversion
factor is 3413 BTU/kWH, so the power level was 11,263 BTU/hour

Output power: The wind speed was 1500 - 1600 CFM, he took the lower number,
1500. The room temperature was 60 deg F, the outlet temperature was 74 deg F,
Delta T 14 deg F. 1500 CF * 1.08 conversion factor * 14 deg F = 22,680
BTU/hour output.


I should have more data this week. I plan two runs of two hours each. I began
by testing the anemometer with a three speed electric fan. My daughter stood
on a chair and took a marvelous electronic photo of me wearing a Japanese cape
ensconced in the dining room taking data -- the quintessential gentleman
scientist at work, as Tinsley used to say. The fan is on the table, the
anemometer mounted on a photo tripod. I determined that the slightest change
in the room makes the instrument go bonkers. I will supply details tomorrow,
but to make a long story short, when you stand up or sit down or move to
within 1 meter of the anemometer, you change the airflow and the numbers
fluctuate drastically. This reminds me of the Wright brothers. (Everything
reminds me of them!) In 1902 they struggled with a primitive but
extraordinarily accurate and sensitive wind tunnel and an instrument made out
of wire and hacksaw blades to measure the drag and lift of miniature wings.
They had such trouble with varying readings that they finally marked the spot
for every item of furniture in the room and marked the spot where the person
reading the instrument would stand. The slightest change in the room affected
the numbers, for the same reason my anemometer readings change.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 13:38:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16740;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:23:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:23:22 -0800
Message-Id: <36460E47.9319DFC5 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 23:33:59 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Virus Hoaxes
References: <2a809b1c.3645ed73 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8LmLR3.0.U54.9lWHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24305
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Tstolper aol.com wrote:
> 
> Tips on how to tell a virus hoax:
> 

> 1)  There's no source.  For a real virus alert, one should be able to give a
> checkable source, e.g., a web page.  If Microsoft had really made an
> announcement regarding the alleged WIN A HOLIDAY virus, then there would have
> been something about that on Microsoft's website, and very likely a specific
> page on their site.
> 
> 2)  The fake warning doesn't originate from anyone you know, it's just a
> forward from some mysterious person you've never heard of before.
> 
> 3)  The hoax message asks you to forward it to everyone possible, as John
> Logajan pointed out.
> 
[snip]

and ...

4) No exact day of announcement. This ensure the hoax propagate months and years.

5) If there are such a global warning, We should hear it from other channels.

But first of all, there would be never a sentence like "pass this along to everyone". This
is chain letter scheme and its forbidden as internet rule.


Unfortunately Windows and MS products are so vulnerable to attacks. This make us over sensitive.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 13:53:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22660;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:43:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:43:54 -0800
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:43:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811082143.NAA22154 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: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
Resent-Message-ID: <"GnsRj3.0.-X5.P2XHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24307
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


The
>question is, "Can any of these particular designs detect ETI gravity wave
>signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?" 
>IMO, the signal to noise level would be horrendous. I personally cannot
>conceive of an interstellar communication device that uses less than a
>sun's total output as a transmitter, so I believe that this particular
>medium must be impossible for the favoured interstellar ETI channels,
>[unless some alien science knows how to make a *totally* NON-dispersing
>gravity wave transmitter.]

Check out the "Light Bullet's Home Page" to see how solitons can be non
dispersing, even though they are in a dispersive medium.

Then as far as detecting the signals, think in terms of being  in a room
filled with noise, and yet being able to distinguish between the sounds of
the drums, or the sounds of the guitars, or the sounds of people talking.
There are different qualities to the cadences of different compression patterns.

Stars have characteristic patterns, which are of far slower temporal
variation than any communications system would utilize.  So despite being in
the same medium, and despite being potentially dispersive, it is still
possible to detect various kinds of signals.  It may well be that ET signals
using this technology may NOT be detectable.  If you think about it, that
would actually be an advantage for local communications if the signals
dispersed to allow different regions to use the same bandwidths for
different information.

In any case, it is one thing to pursue search for ETI, and another to pursue
the search of FTL or compression wave communications techniques.

That said, even with compression waveforms by using solitonic techniques it
is possible to send non dispersive signals through dispersive mediums.  The
only drawback is that the propogation velocity is slower.  This is because
you end up with a solitonic transverse waveform.   ;-)

IOW, EM waves ARE, those slower waves!

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 14:33:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28426;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:09:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:09:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199811082208.RAA18940 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:11:15 -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: <"AzQ8Z3.0.0y6.eQXHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24308
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Jed wrote:
 
> Here is the data from Ralph Pope from a test on 11/6/98, duration 1 hour
15
> minutes:
> 
> Input power was 16.6 amps, 200 volts = 3300 watts (3.3 kW). The
conversion
> factor is 3413 BTU/kWH, so the power level was 11,263 BTU/hour
> 
> Output power: The wind speed was 1500 - 1600 CFM, he took the lower
number,
> 1500. The room temperature was 60 deg F, the outlet temperature was 74
deg F,
> Delta T 14 deg F. 1500 CF * 1.08 conversion factor * 14 deg F = 22,680
> BTU/hour output.
> 
Impressive.

Ask him if he ever gets null runs.  Ask if he has a null rotor we could use
for testing when (if) I get there.  Ask how he feels about taking it apart
to replace the rotor.  I know he can do it pretty quickly, but is that
likely to destroy the effect?

That current seems a bit low.  Does it include the blower motor?

The CFM of 1500 seems high, but he probably has a different blower motor. 
About the best I have seen is 1200 CFM and the best delta-Temp in the
neighborhood of 10F, but that was with > 18A of current (and much lower
CFM).

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 14:39:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03431;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:32:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:32:50 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b26bcadaafe3 [12.72.131.245]>
In-Reply-To: <3645D618.31AD4618 verisoft.com.tr>
References: <719229c1.3645aaeb aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:29:30 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax: positions checked (Project 415)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LdxNY1.0.Xr.ImXHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24310
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi -

>From the site you mentioned ( http://jya.com/echelon-dc.htm )

   >  RUNWAY is thought to be the control network for an
   >  eavesdropping satellite called VORTEX, now in orbit
   >  over the Soviet Union

Ok -  we're back on topic!  :)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 14:47:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30352;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:17:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:17:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3644E22F.6435B7DE sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 16:13:35 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI
References: <3.0.5.32.19981108154742.007ed4b0 inforamp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ALOQ43.0.AQ7.SXXHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24309
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?"

Are you talking about 'longitudinal waves'? Is this the same as a
'scalar' wave? I've seen devices purported to produce/detect scalar
waves, but no real background as to exacly what these scalar or
longitudinal waves are. Anybody care to explain this? What are the
purported properties of these waves?

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 15:06:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11062;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:00:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:00:35 -0800
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:52:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: HOAX ... READ THIS...Re: Fwd: FW: WARNING!
In-Reply-To: <199811071348.HAA12168 mirage.skypoint.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981108175005.11929F-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ph57H.0.ii2.IAYHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24311
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	It is VERY VERY dangerous to to assume anything that is marked 
'pass this along is a hoax... it may be, and it may NOT be.

	The best plan is to check it out FIRST... with NCSA or equivalent 
[Bill Beatty can help with good addresses for checking]

	THEN... if it IS a virus, send the warning WITH the back up
reference.... 


				JHS


On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, John Logajan wrote:

> > This came to me this morning over the company intranet as an official warning
> > so I will pass it on here.
> > Vince
> > Las Vegas Nevada
> > > >  Subject:  WARNING!
> > >  > WARNING!
> > >  >
> > >  > If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It
> > >  > will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to
> > >  > as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and
> > >  > not many people know about it. This information was announced
> > >  > Monday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this
> > >  > along to everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped.
> 
> This is a hoax.  Anything that asks you to "pass this along to everyone"
> is a hoax.
> 
> 
> -- 
>  - 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  Sun Nov  8 15:19:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06755;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36461CA9.516B bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 14:35:21 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
References: <3644B63A.4694B353 sunherald.infi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2CEBY2.0.Lf1.aNYHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24313
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> 
> Vo:
> 
> I was just curious, what would you use to search for emissions from ETI,
> other than standard hertzian waves? If its simple enough, then for
> cryin' out loud, lets build something! ;)
> 
> Kyle R. Mcallister

Tachyon pulses?  Subspace disturbances?

The point being that SETI assumes that someone is trying to signal us. 
If so, they conclude that the most likely frequency is the water hole. 
We are not seeking stray emissions like those 1939 broadcasts returned
to us in "Contact".  Indeed, we lack the sensitivity to detect such
emissions as yet.

So, the problem is in that assumption.

Even if we *did* detect a stray signal from an ET source *unintended*
for us, the likelihood of a repeat detection is slim.  Look at it this
way, most of our signals are highly directional.  Suppose we detected a
satellite uplink overshoot from an ET civilization.  With a beamwidth of
a fraction of a degree, what is the probability we would see it again? 
Their planet is rotating, in orbit around their star and moving
laterally through space.  We might get a brief sweep of the signal one
day and not see it again due to these movements.

And if there really is a prime directive, they wouldn't intentionally
signal us, would they?

Personally, I suspect the RF period of a civilization is short lived. 
There is already evidence that non-ionizing radiation has a detrimental
effect on life.  A smarter race might be more careful in their
management of EM signals.  And look how quickly we have moved from a
terrestrial microwave based system to a fiber optics based system of
communications.

I think life in the universe is ubiquitous but unintentional discovery
by a lower technology is unlikely.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 15:22:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05581;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:09:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:09:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108180155.00894780 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 18:01:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI
In-Reply-To: <3644E22F.6435B7DE sunherald.infi.net>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981108154742.007ed4b0 inforamp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wGfmb3.0.6N1.zIYHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24312
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:13 PM 11/07/98 -0800, Kyle wrote:
>> signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?"
>

No, not scalar waves. FWIW, I was referring to Ross Tessien's analogy  of
sound waves in water. Sequential longitudinal compression and rarefactions
of the medium. In this case the medium is aether. 

>Are you talking about 'longitudinal waves'? 

No. Not to my knowledge.

Is this the same as a
>'scalar' wave? 

Not that I am aware of.. although they may be related somewhat. (Anyone
wish to jump in here?)

I've seen devices purported to produce/detect scalar
>waves, but no real background as to exacly what these scalar or
>longitudinal waves are. Anybody care to explain this? What are the
>purported properties of these waves?
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister


Good questions.. 

Best Regards,
Colin Quinney

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 16:35:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21210;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 16:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 16:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108190811.009da750 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 19:08:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
In-Reply-To: <199811082143.NAA22154 Au.oro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"plKD92.0.JB5.HEZHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24314
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:43 PM 11/08/98 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
>
even with compression waveforms by using solitonic techniques it
>is possible to send non dispersive signals through dispersive mediums.  The
>only drawback is that the propogation velocity is slower.  This is because
>you end up with a solitonic transverse waveform.   ;-)
>
>IOW, EM waves ARE, those slower waves!
>
>Ross Tessien


You are saying that a solitonic gravity wave [or solitonic aether
compression wave] becomes EM?

Where does that put the scalar wave then, or the EM longitudinal wave? Are
they just different names for 'gravity waves' or 'aether compression waves'?


Thanks,
Colin Quinney.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 17:58:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23172;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:46:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:46:13 -0800
Message-ID: <000d01be0b82$465ce660$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Colloidal/Nanostructure Palladium Dispersion
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:37:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"FwVyy1.0.-f5.bbaHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24315
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The literature claims that arcing metal wires such as
copper,silver,gold,platinum,or palladium in H2O (or D2O) results in
dispersed
particles ranging in size from 1.0 to 200 nanometers with hundreds to
thousands of the metal atoms in clusters.

A 30 to 40 Volt D.C. Power supply delivering
5 to 10.0 amperes is sufficient for the vaporizing arc in the H2O or D2O.

A Ruby-Colored "Gold Sol" made this way is/was
used in medicine for spinal injections.

With the Palladium in D2O with an enormous surface area and the
nanoclusters, who knows?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 18:20:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32124;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:13:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:13:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109101612.00acaea0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:16:12 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b269d6a07622 [12.21.208.44]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cRwMA2.0.sr7.Q_aHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24316
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:18 7/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>At 1:43 PM 11/7/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>>Given the raw data of phase vs time that has been plotted, I
>>think I could work out how much of the apparent motion is due
>>to the earths rotation, and how much is due to proper motion
>>against the fixed star background.  However have not the
>>enthusiasm to regenerate the data from the plot, and I do not
>>want to bother Dr Norris for it.
>>
>>The plot of signal strength vs time is probably also sufficient
>>to determine proper motion.  But we would need to know more
>>about the antenna sensitivity lobes etc.
>
>I don't think either is sufficient data.  The sample calculation I gave was
>only to demonstrate the principle.  It lacks the refinements of a real
>calculation, which would have to compensate for the earth's rotation rate
>and the diameter of the earth.  The phase change in both the N-S and E-W
>directions would be required to include these compensating values, I think.
>Also, an accurate orbital paramter determination would require a number of
>accurate observations, at least 5, through time.

Look at the phase vs time data.  There are literally hundreds of
accurate data points.  Assuming the object is moving along some
constant vector against the background stars, the equation of
phase shift vs time as seen from the telescope is quite easy to
derive, and only contains about four unknown parameters.  One of
these parameters is the one of interest - the linear velocity
against the background stars.  The other parameters give its
direction, initial position, initial angle of telescope w.r.t.
the sky etc.  With so many data points, it should be easy to get
an accurate fit for all parameters.  I had seriously considered
doing it but now I have completely lost interest.  But if someone
wants to provide the raw data, I am willing to do a fit to it.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 18:23:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32589;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:15:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:15:06 -0800
From: Geosas aol.com
Message-ID: <802d72bc.36464f41 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:11:13 EST
To: Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au, Seth_Shostak@seti.org, jimostr@ca-ois.com
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i  for Windows sub 164
Resent-Message-ID: <"1JOGi.0.5z7.f0bHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24317
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Jim,

I am not quite sure what you are driving at in your recent postings
to Vortex.  As I read it, you are saying: the signals observed in
Australia could not have come from a geosynchronous satellite
(as indeed they couldn't, as these all have to be on the celestial
equator and EQ Peg is at Dec +19), and nor could they have come
from any other satellite, because these all use spread-spectrum.
Therefore it must have been an ET signal.

This was a CW signal, which you say would be ideal for interstellar
communication.  On what grounds?  We use spread-spectrum for
GPS and around the solar system as CW is impossible due to 
Doppler effect, dispersion etc.

If I was looking for ET signals I would use wideband receivers and look
for pulse modulation including simple pseudo-random binary sequences.

You think that the Australian signal had to be ET because it was
constant, but on his Web site Ray Norris specifically states that the
'interference' varied in amplitude as if passing through the antenna
lobes, so it _was_ moving against the celestial background.

We should all be very grateful to Ray for devoting some telescope
time to this, instead of indulging in carping armchair criticism.

Anyway let's call it a day on this topic.

Cheers, George.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 18:58:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11251;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:55:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:55:26 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:55:11 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: Undisclosed recipients:  ;
Subject: New newsgroup: alt.sci.amateur
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981108173420.3181F-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"W4YN7.0.Tl2.ScbHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24318
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


I just stumbled across a newsgroup-creation message from 8/31/98, for
ALT.SCI.AMATEUR, intended for discussion of amateur science topics.  It's
about time! 

To read ALT.SCI.AMATEUR through dejanews, go to:

   http://www.dejanews.com/=dnt_test1/dnquery.xp?search=word&svcclass=dncurrent&showsort=date&ST=QS&query=~g%20alt.sci.amateur

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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:davegreene my-dejanews.com
Date:1998/10/13
Forums:alt.sci.amateur, sci.skeptic, alt.folklore.science,

On 8/31/98 a control message was issued to create alt.sci.amateur. This
invitation is being posted to these newsgroups in hopes that the new
alt.sci.amateur newsgroup might become a resource for science students and
hobbyists to further their science education. Ask your ISP to subscribe to
alt.sci.amateur of catch it on Deja News. Welcome and enjoy! Please abide
by the charter.

Charter: alt.sci.amateur is an unmoderated newsgroup for discussion of all
matters related to the amateur science hobby. It is not intended to be a
general science discussion group except as relating to an experiment or
project discussion appropriate to the group. Flames and inappropriate
crosspostings are off charter. Religious discussions and creation vs
evolution debates are also off charter. Binaries not allowed and posters
are encouraged to use email or point to Web sites for binaries having to
do with science projects. While rocketry and chemistry are legitimate
topics, plans for bombs of any type are explicitly off topic. All
advertising, whether commercial or private, that is not related to the
amateur science hobby is explicitly off topic.

Dave Greene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 19:28:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA17216;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <002101be0b8f$a1e634c0$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: UltraLight-Disinfection of Water (http://www.news.li/trade/ul-light/disinf.htm)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:04:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE0B53.0FA957E0"
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: <"73AXm.0.wC4.J2cHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24319
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_01BE0B53.0FA957E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

254 Nanometer (4.88 ev) UV Lamps for disinfecting water

http://www.news.li/trade/ul-light/disinf.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE0B53.0FA957E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="UltraLight-Disinfection of Water.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="UltraLight-Disinfection of Water.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.news.li/trade/ul-light/disinf.htm
Modified=209954538D0BBE01B7

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE0B53.0FA957E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 19:31:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24630;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:30:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <002d01be0b90$de710ea0$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Colloidal Palladium Water Dispersion and 254 Nanometer UV
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:27:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ig9aS1.0.m06.T7cHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24320
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If the nanoparticle Palladium Sol disperses well in D2O or H2O, the next
experiment might be to immerse a 254 nanometer (4.88 ev photons)UV Lamp in
the solution to see if photolysis of the D2O causes in O/U reaction
Palladium.

A link to a UV lamp supplier was sent earlier.

The UV Lamps/Bulbs used to erase EPROMS may work also.

FJS



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 21:11:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23123;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:09:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:09:51 -0800
Message-ID: <36468062.3080 ca-ois.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:40:50 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au, Seth_Shostak@seti.org
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax
References: <802d72bc.36464f41 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"a7Sy8.0.Df5.VadHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24321
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geosas aol.com wrote:
> 
> Dear Jim,
> 
> I am not quite sure what you are driving at in your recent postings
> to Vortex.  As I read it, you are saying: the signals observed in
> Australia could not have come from a geosynchronous satellite
> (as indeed they couldn't, as these all have to be on the celestial
> equator and EQ Peg is at Dec +19), and nor could they have come
> from any other satellite, because these all use spread-spectrum.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the signal could not have come from
any other kind of satellite,  since I am not privy to government
secrets. For all I know the so called interference could be from one of
these "secret" "black" project systems.
All that can be said is that what Dr. Norris dismissed as interference
appears quite anomalous in view of the above considerations about what
"typical" satellite emissions 
are like.       

> Therefore it must have been an ET signal.

You are adding an inference here that you must take responsibility for,
George. Not me.
I never said any such thing. As the title of my post suggests, these are
merely "loose ends" that I would prefer not be left hanging out there,
that's all.

> 
> This was a CW signal, which you say would be ideal for interstellar
> communication.  On what grounds? 

I'm glad you asked. Response appears below. 

 We use spread-spectrum for
> GPS and around the solar system 

I was not sure about GPS (I'm not current on that technology),  and had
been wondering if this was one possible explanation for the CW
interference. If you are sure that GPS
uses spread spectrum, then I suppose we can close the door on that
idea.  

>as CW is impossible due to
> Doppler effect, dispersion etc.
>

Doppler effect? Doppler shift can be compensated for if the relative
velocity of object in question is known, and presents no insurmountable
barrier to effective modulation  to convey information sufficient for
the purposes of SETI. 
 
Dispersion? I see no reason that a clean monochramatic CW signal would
suffer significant dispersion losses if it's frequency  did not coincide
with an absorption line of elements in the path of the signal ,
atmospheric ones included. Out in space , what you have is mostly 
vacuum with widely separated molecules of hydrogen, the absorption lines
of which may be easily avoided.

etc? What etcetera, exactly?

> If I was looking for ET signals I would use wideband receivers and look
> for pulse modulation including simple pseudo-random binary sequences.

Frank Drake , back in the 60's devised a very simple "television"
graphic for the SETI
effort of the time which was jam packed with interesting information but
consisted of only 1271 "bits" coresponding to the "pixels". There was
nothing random or pseudo-random about it at all. To the contrary , the
proposed signal would be instantly recognized by 
any ET astronomers out there because astronomers can be safely
considered as all being mathematics experts. As any math expert can
quickly determine , the number 1271 is the product of the prime numbers
41 times 31. This reduces to an obvious instruction to arrange the bits
in 31 lines of 41 elements each. 

I could give you details of what the picture contained, but the
preceding is sufficient to make the point.

Here is why I think CW would be more suitable for SETI: 

A wide band signal would add complexity to what should be a
straghtforward , simple calculation (as demonstrated, above) for the
purposes of decoding by any ET's who might be out there in the intercept
path. Why hop around in frequency searching for something on the order
of 1300 bits ? How would ET's derive the modulation scheme for a wide
band
signal if one could not be agreed upon beforehand?   

Monochromatic signals are more readily collimated because they are
coherent, like a laser beam's. This means a tighter beamwidth minimising
the energy requirements and would therefore stand out more against the
background noise for anyone looking in their direction of origin.  

> 
> You think that the Australian signal had to be ET because it was
> constant, but on his Web site Ray Norris specifically states that the
> 'interference' varied in amplitude as if passing through the antenna
> lobes, so it _was_ moving against the celestial background.

This variation in amplitude could have also been a rather slow
modulation artifact, but who knows?

It would have been nice to know the rate and directions of this reported
amplitude variation, and perhaps it could be derived from the other
diagrams which I am not familiar with. 

> 
> We should all be very grateful to Ray for devoting some telescope
> time to this,

By all means let me add my extreme sentiments of gratitude for turning
that big dish of yours Dr. Norris. I believe I can speak for all the
members of the Vortex forum in this
regard that this was very nice of you. Really. ; ^) 

> instead of indulging in carping armchair criticism.
>

Now wait a minit, George. I am NOT "carping". This SETI thing happens to
be one of my favorite subjects, that's all , and I am just expressing my
concerns that I have a right to do under the Constitution of the United
States, among other documants and general principles, ok? C'mon lighten
up. Visit my website

 http://www.ca-ois.com/jimostr 

and you will see that I am a serious student of this, NOT an "armchair"
quarterback of some kind just spewing out inconsiderate commments with
no basis in logic or
aesthetics.
 
> Anyway let's call it a day on this topic.

Right . Until tomorrow then. 

> 
> Cheers, George.

Cheers to you , George.

Jim ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov  8 23:58:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA27935;
	Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:56:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:56:05 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981109075555.008fe468 freeway.net>
X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 02:55:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: Colloidal/Nanostructure Palladium Dispersion
Resent-Message-ID: <"ULdOF1.0.Kq6.L0gHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24322
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 06:37 PM 11/8/98 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>The literature claims that arcing metal wires such as
>copper,silver,gold,platinum,or palladium in H2O (or D2O) results in
>dispersed
>particles ranging in size from 1.0 to 200 nanometers with hundreds to
>thousands of the metal atoms in clusters.
>
>A 30 to 40 Volt D.C. Power supply delivering
>5 to 10.0 amperes is sufficient for the vaporizing arc in the H2O or D2O.
>
>A Ruby-Colored "Gold Sol" made this way is/was
>used in medicine for spinal injections.
>
>With the Palladium in D2O with an enormous surface area and the
>nanoclusters, who knows?
>
Do you have a specific reference for making nanometer sized palladium (or
nickel) palladium particles?

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 00:29:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA02786;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 00:28:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 00:28:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b26c56aabe3b [208.228.222.18]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:34:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q6Hkl2.0.Sh.XUgHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24323
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:16 AM 11/9/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>At 02:18 7/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>At 1:43 PM 11/7/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>>>Given the raw data of phase vs time that has been plotted, I
>>>think I could work out how much of the apparent motion is due
>>>to the earths rotation, and how much is due to proper motion
>>>against the fixed star background.  However have not the
>>>enthusiasm to regenerate the data from the plot, and I do not
>>>want to bother Dr Norris for it.
>>>
>>>The plot of signal strength vs time is probably also sufficient
>>>to determine proper motion.  But we would need to know more
>>>about the antenna sensitivity lobes etc.
>>
>>I don't think either is sufficient data.  The sample calculation I gave was
>>only to demonstrate the principle.  It lacks the refinements of a real
>>calculation, which would have to compensate for the earth's rotation rate
>>and the diameter of the earth.  The phase change in both the N-S and E-W
>>directions would be required to include these compensating values, I think.
>>Also, an accurate orbital paramter determination would require a number of
>>accurate observations, at least 5, through time.
>
>Look at the phase vs time data.  There are literally hundreds of
>accurate data points.  Assuming the object is moving along some
>constant vector against the background stars, the equation of
>phase shift vs time as seen from the telescope is quite easy to
>derive, and only contains about four unknown parameters.  One of
>these parameters is the one of interest - the linear velocity
>against the background stars.  The other parameters give its
>direction, initial position, initial angle of telescope w.r.t.
>the sky etc.  With so many data points, it should be easy to get
>an accurate fit for all parameters.  I had seriously considered
>doing it but now I have completely lost interest.  But if someone
>wants to provide the raw data, I am willing to do a fit to it.


Well, I still don't see any way to do accurate orbital fixes from the data
at hand. To be on the safe side I rechecked

<http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/>

It appears to me the ATCA antennas are located colinearly.  The array needs
to be on crossed tracks in order to get phase info in two dimensions,
right?  It is just not designed for close-in work.  Note that the
indications are the "satellite" might have a significant N-S component to
its motion.

I have to admit that I too have pretty much lost interest in this.  It is
way too late to do much about anything, as far as I can see.  Nothing left
but speculation at this point.  I suppose more observations of the area
couldn't hurt though.  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 01:23:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA09434;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:20:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:20:45 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109172316.00abd790 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:23:16 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b26c56aabe3b [208.228.222.18]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"15pHj1.0.GJ2.jFhHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24324
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 23:34 8/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>It appears to me the ATCA antennas are located colinearly.

Yes this is correct.

>The array needs
>to be on crossed tracks in order to get phase info in two dimensions,
>right?

At the same instant in time yes.  But since the earth is turning,
after 6 hours we are getting phase information from the dimension
at right angles to the first.  There are enough data points to
get a value for phase shift rate at these two points 6 hours apart
and thus we have one value for N-S rate, and a second for E-W rate.

But that is not the way one would tackle the problem.  One would
derive the equation, do a curve fit over all the points, and the
result would give all the values of interest - velocity w.r.t
background, direction if you wanted it, etc. There IS enough data
there to answer the question.

How good the fit was compared to the precision of the measurements
would also indicate whether the motion was constant velocity
(as expected for the derived equation) or showed some acceleration
against background.  If a constant velocity, then the likely
circular orbit and distance from earth could be guessed.

>I have to admit that I too have pretty much lost interest in this.
>It is way too late to do much about anything, as far as I can see.
>Nothing left but speculation at this point.

The data still exists and may be processed.  This will answer
the interesting question of whether the source was moving w.r.t
the background stars (an almost certain and non-interesting
result) or not moving (still a very interesting result but
rather too unlikely to be worth the effort).

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 02:28:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA20226;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:19:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:19:49 -0800
Message-ID: <005c01be0bca$07f74ee0$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Colloidal/Nanostructure Palladium Dispersion
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:16:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"uSoJZ3.0.yx4.57iHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24325
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Colloidal/Nanostructure Palladium Dispersion

Ed Strojny wrote:


>At 06:37 PM 11/8/98 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>>To: Vortex
>>
>>The literature claims that arcing metal wires such as
>>copper,silver,gold,platinum,or palladium in H2O (or D2O) results in
>>dispersed
>>particles ranging in size from 1.0 to 200 nanometers with hundreds to
>>thousands of the metal atoms in clusters.
>>
>>A 30 to 40 Volt D.C. Power supply delivering
>>5 to 10.0 amperes is sufficient for the vaporizing arc in the H2O or D2O.
>>
>>A Ruby-Colored "Gold Sol" made this way is/was
>>used in medicine for spinal injections.
>>
>>With the Palladium in D2O with an enormous surface area and the
>>nanoclusters, who knows?
>>
>Do you have a specific reference for making nanometer sized palladium (or
>nickel) palladium particles?

Not at the moment,Ed, I found this in an ancient college chemistry text. :-)

The Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM)spark discharge machines that use
oil or water, also
can be set to do this, since they are servo-controlled and pulse
rate/voltage-current programable. They catch the large particles in a
filter, but the nanoparticles are too small except for ultra-filters. They
use the EDM's to make oil or water-filled microballoons. Lots of EDM job
shops around.

Regards,  Frederick

>
>Ed Strojny
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 02:34:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA25285;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:33:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:33:28 -0800
Message-ID: <008501be0bcb$efab4c40$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: What Are Magnetic Nanoparticles? (http://www-sims.nist.gov/SigmaXi/Posters98/ab
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:30:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE0B91.3B715880"
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: <"QjTPo3.0._A6.uJiHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24326
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_0010_01BE0B91.3B715880
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lots of nanoparticle literature on the web, Ed.

http://www-sims.nist.gov/SigmaXi/Posters98/abs/scott/index.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE0B91.3B715880
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="What Are Magnetic Nanoparticles.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="What Are Magnetic Nanoparticles.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www-sims.nist.gov/SigmaXi/Posters98/abs/scott/index.htm
Modified=00DF25B4CB0BBE014D

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE0B91.3B715880--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 02:51:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA29236;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:48:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:48:14 -0800
Message-ID: <009401be0bcd$ff2d1b60$588f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Introduction to the WTEC Nanotechnology Study (http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:44:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0B93.4CAF2F80"
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: <"yBipB3.0.j87.jXiHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24327
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_0021_01BE0B93.4CAF2F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

More on nanoparticles,Ed.  :-)

http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0B93.4CAF2F80
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Introduction to the WTEC Nanotechnology Study.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Introduction to the WTEC Nanotechnology Study.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/
Modified=80181DBBCD0BBE0107

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0B93.4CAF2F80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 03:08:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA32556;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:01:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:01:19 -0800
Message-Id: <199811091100.FAA06069 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:59:28 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI
Resent-Message-ID: <"7387H1.0.Yy7.-jiHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24328
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?"
>
>Are you talking about 'longitudinal waves'? Is this the same as a
>'scalar' wave? I've seen devices purported to produce/detect scalar
>waves, but no real background as to exacly what these scalar or
>longitudinal waves are. Anybody care to explain this? What are the
>purported properties of these waves?
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister

***{The normal usage of the term "longitudinal wave" is for purpose of
contrast to the term "transverse wave." The distinction is between two
types of wave motion. In one type, the oscillations  that occur at a fixed
point in space are perpendicular to the direction of motion of the wave.
These types of waves--an example would be garden variety water waves--are
referred to as "transverse waves." In the other type of wave, the
oscillations that occur at a fixed point in space are parallel to the
direction of motion of the waves. These types of waves--an example is sound
waves--are referred to as longitudinal waves or, more descriptively, as
compression waves. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 03:46:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06573;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:45:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 03:45:35 -0800
Message-ID: <000501be0bd6$01705b00$568f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; El Cheapo Variable Power Supply for Nanoparticle Generation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:41:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"dGxaF2.0.dc1.UNjHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24329
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed:

A light dimmer control/switch and a full-wave bridge rectifier makes a
convenient variable
power supply to get the 30 to 40 volt, 5 to 10
ampere D.C. needed for arcing Palladium in H2O or D2O to make the
nanoparticles.

Incandescent lightbulbs and/or a 15 amp fuse or circuit-breaker can be
hooked in series to keep you from dumping the Power Grid into your
shop when you get a short.

Otherwise, you might sweet-talk Frank Stenger into loaning you his capacitor
bank if you want kilotonnes of nanoparticles/shot.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 04:25:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA11145;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001001be0bda$313fe680$568f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: KIRILLOV - 1996 (http://caty.catalysis.nsk.su/1996/kirillov.html)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:11:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE0B9F.6B369F40"
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: <"-w-7Q.0.2k2.CxjHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24330
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_002F_01BE0B9F.6B369F40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Kirillov V.A.,Ryndin Yu.A.,=20
Methanol Synthesis on Palladium Nanoparticles, Size Effect.. React. =
Kinet. Catal. Lett., 59 (2) (1996) 351-358=20

Lukyanov B.N.,Kirillov V.A.,Ostrovskii N.M.,=20
Hydropurification of Petroleum Fractions.. Khim. Prom., 2 (1996) 72-86 =
(in Russian)=20

Skomorokhov V.B.,Zakharov V.A.,Kirillov V.A.,=20
Investigation of Kinetics of Ethylene Polymerization with Supported =
Titanium-Magnezium Catalysts of Various Composition.. Macromol. Chem. =
Phys., 197 (1996) 1615-1631=20

Khanaev V.M.,(Fadeev S.I.,Lukyanova R.G.),Kirillov V.A.,=20
Mathematical Models and Calculation Algorithms in Modeling =
Multicomponent Multiphase Processes in Slurry Reactors.. 13th Intern. =
Conf. on Chemical Reactors (Chemreactor-13), Novosibirsk, Russia. =
Abstracts, II , (1996) 64-68 (in Russian)=20

Kirillov V.A.,=20
Multiplicity and Instability of Regimes in Reactors with a Trickled =
Catalyst Bed.. 13th Intern. Conf. on Chemical Reactors (Chemreactor-13), =
Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, I , (1996) 72-80 (in Russian)=20

Kirillov V.A.,(Fadeev S.I.),=20
Mathematical Model of Hydrocarbon Gas Catalytic Oxidation on a Permeable =
Plate. . 13th Intern. Conf. on Chemical Reactors (Chemreactor-13), =
Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, II , (1996) 60-63 (in Russian)=20

Kirillov V.A.,(Fadeev S.I.),=20
Mathematical Modelling of Hydrocarbon Gases Oxidation on the Catalytic =
Heat Generating Elements.. 3rd Intern. Workshop on Catalytic Combustion, =
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Abstracts, , (1996) P3.8=20

(Luk'yanova R.G.),Kirillov V.A.,(Fadeev S.I.),Khanaev V.M.,=20
Effect of Parameters upon Modeling the Process in a Suspension Bed.. 2nd =
Siberian Congr. "Applied and Industrial Mathematics" (INPRIM-96), =
Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, , (1996) 60-61 (in Russian)=20

Anikeev V.I.,Bobrin A.S.,Kirillov V.A.,=20
Catalytic Helioreactor.. Patent RF N 2030694 (Russia). BI 7 , ( 1995) =
(in Russian).=20

Pai Z.P.,Yermakova A.,Kirillov V.A.,Kundo N.N.,Luk'yanov B.N., Gogin =
L.V.,Zagorodnyaya S.I.,(Bogomazov V.M.,Samoilov B.I., Kozyura A.I.),=20
Method of Sulfur Production from the Gases Containing SO2.. Patent RF N =
2046754 (Russia). BI 30 , (1995) (in Russian).=20

Yurieva T.M.,(Shokhireva T.H.),Korotkikh V.N.,Bibin V.N., Kirillov =
V.A.,Kuvshinov G.G.,Demeshkina M.P.,Skomorokhova N.G.,=20
A Method for Producing Formic Acid Free of Methanol.. Patent RF 2053995 =
(Russia) BI 4 , (1996) (in Russian)=20


------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE0B9F.6B369F40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>KIRILLOV - 1996</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://caty.catalysis.nsk.su/1996/kirillov.html>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov =
V.A.</A>,<A=20
href=3D"../leading/ryndin.html">Ryndin Yu.A.</A>, =
</FONT></I><BR>Methanol=20
Synthesis on Palladium Nanoparticles, Size Effect.. React. Kinet. Catal. =
Lett.,=20
59 (2) (1996) 351-358=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I>Lukyanov B.N.,<A =
href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov=20
V.A.</A>,<A href=3D"../leading/ostrovskii.html">Ostrovskii N.M.</A>,=20
</FONT></I><BR>Hydropurification of Petroleum Fractions.. Khim. Prom., 2 =
(1996)=20
72-86 (in Russian)=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I>Skomorokhov V.B.,<A =
href=3D"../leading/zakharov.html">Zakharov=20
V.A.</A>,<A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>,=20
</FONT></I><BR>Investigation of Kinetics of Ethylene Polymerization with =

Supported Titanium-Magnezium Catalysts of Various Composition.. =
Macromol. Chem.=20
Phys., 197 (1996) 1615-1631=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I>Khanaev V.M.,(Fadeev S.I.,Lukyanova R.G.),<A=20
href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>, =
</FONT></I><BR>Mathematical=20
Models and Calculation Algorithms in Modeling Multicomponent Multiphase=20
Processes in Slurry Reactors.. 13th Intern. Conf. on Chemical Reactors=20
(Chemreactor-13), Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, II , (1996) 64-68 (in =
Russian)=20

<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov =
V.A.</A>,=20
</FONT></I><BR>Multiplicity and Instability of Regimes in Reactors with =
a=20
Trickled Catalyst Bed.. 13th Intern. Conf. on Chemical Reactors=20
(Chemreactor-13), Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, I , (1996) 72-80 (in =
Russian)=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov =
V.A.</A>,(Fadeev=20
S.I.), </FONT></I><BR>Mathematical Model of Hydrocarbon Gas Catalytic =
Oxidation=20
on a Permeable Plate. . 13th Intern. Conf. on Chemical Reactors=20
(Chemreactor-13), Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, II , (1996) 60-63 (in =
Russian)=20

<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov =
V.A.</A>,(Fadeev=20
S.I.), </FONT></I><BR>Mathematical Modelling of Hydrocarbon Gases =
Oxidation on=20
the Catalytic Heat Generating Elements.. 3rd Intern. Workshop on =
Catalytic=20
Combustion, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Abstracts, , (1996) P3.8=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I>(Luk'yanova R.G.),<A=20
href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>,(Fadeev =
S.I.),Khanaev V.M.,=20
</FONT></I><BR>Effect of Parameters upon Modeling the Process in a =
Suspension=20
Bed.. 2nd Siberian Congr. &quot;Applied and Industrial Mathematics&quot; =

(INPRIM-96), Novosibirsk, Russia. Abstracts, , (1996) 60-61 (in Russian) =

<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/anikeev.html">Anikeev =
V.I.</A>,Bobrin=20
A.S.,<A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>,=20
</FONT></I><BR>Catalytic Helioreactor.. Patent RF N 2030694 (Russia). BI =
7 , (=20
1995) (in Russian).=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I>Pai Z.P.,<A =
href=3D"../leading/yermakova.html">Yermakova=20
A.</A>,<A href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>,<A=20
href=3D"../leading/kundo.html">Kundo N.N.</A>,Luk'yanov B.N., Gogin=20
L.V.,Zagorodnyaya S.I.,(Bogomazov V.M.,Samoilov B.I., Kozyura A.I.),=20
</FONT></I><BR>Method of Sulfur Production from the Gases Containing =
SO2..=20
Patent RF N 2046754 (Russia). BI 30 , (1995) (in Russian).=20
<P><FONT size=3D+1><I><A href=3D"../leading/yurieva.html">Yurieva=20
T.M.</A>,(Shokhireva T.H.),Korotkikh V.N.,Bibin V.N., <A=20
href=3D"../leading/kirillov.html">Kirillov V.A.</A>,<A=20
href=3D"../leading/kuvshinov.html">Kuvshinov G.G.</A>,Demeshkina =
M.P.,Skomorokhova=20
N.G., </FONT></I><BR>A Method for Producing Formic Acid Free of =
Methanol..=20
Patent RF 2053995 (Russia) BI 4 , (1996) (in Russian) </P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE0B9F.6B369F40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 04:28:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA15811;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:27:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:27:07 -0800
Message-ID: <003e01be0bdb$cb4b36c0$568f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <estrojny freeway.net>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: 1998 Annual Meeting Technical Program- AIChE (http://198.6.4.175/docs/meetapp/p
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:22:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	type="multipart/alternative";
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0"
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: <"zr_IF3.0.zs3.R-jHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24331
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_0030_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0031_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0"


------=_NextPart_001_0031_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
            Meetings
            1998 Annual Meeting Technical Program=20
   =20




Production of Nanoparticles of Controlled Size and Composition


By:   Kevin B Stavens=20
                Ronald P Andres =20
Presented at: Session 201 - Production of Nanoparticles of Controlled =
Size and Composition=20
   =20


Online Technical=20
            Program  Abstract:=20
            A gas aggregation type aerosol reactor is used to produce =
pure metal andmixed metal particles with diameters in the nanometer size =
range. Thenanoparticles produced in this reactor are spherical and have =
a narrow sizedistribution and a uniform composition. The reactor makes =
use of adistributed DC arc to evaporate metal atoms from a liquid melt =
held insidea carbon crucible. The metal atoms diffuse through the hot =
plasma regionof the arc and are entrained in a rapidly moving inert gas =
stream whichcools and dilutes the metal vapor. This stream expands =
through a nozzlewhere it is further cooled and diluted by mixing with a =
room temperaturestream of inert gas. Downstream of this quench region =
the nanoparticlesare scrubbed from the gas phase by bubbling the =
particle aerosol through aliquid containing surface active molecules. =
These surfactants adsorb ontothe particles to produce a stable colloidal =
suspension. This DistributedArc Cluster Source is capable of producing =
nanometer size particles of mostmetals and mixed metal clusters of =
practically any composition. [*****]

            =20

            Author Information:

            Kevin B Stavens=20
                            Purdue University=20
                            1283 Chemical Engineering Bldg.=20
                            West Lafayette, IN 47907=20
                            Phone: (765)494-4053
                           =20
                            Fax: (765)494-0805=20
                            Email: stavens ecn.purdue.edu   Ronald P =
Andres=20
                            Purdue University=20
                            1283 Chemical Engineering Bldg.=20
                            West Lafayette, IN 47907=20
                            Phone: (765)494-4047
                           =20
                            Fax: (765)494-0805=20
                            Email: ronald ecn.purdue.edu=20
            =20
   =20




=20

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            [Elements] [News] [Member Services] [Meetings] =
[Publications] [Education Services] [CCPS] [CWRT] [DIPPR] [DIERS] [pdXi] =
=20
            [Career & Employment Services] [Government Relations] =
[AIChExpress Service Center] [Feedback] [Site Map] [Top]=20
           =20

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20

            =20
 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
            Your suggestions and other feedback on the AIChE Web Site =
are welcome.=20
            =A9 1997 American Institute of Chemical Engineers. All =
rights reserved.
            =20


------=_NextPart_001_0031_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>1998 Annual Meeting Technical Program- =
AIChE</TITLE><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://198.6.4.175/docs/meetapp/programming/techprogram/abstracts/=
261.htm><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC '-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN'>
<META content=3D"" name=3DKEYWORDS>
<META content=3Dcb name=3DAuthor>
<META content=3D"Preliminary information on AIChEs 1998 Annual Meeting"=20
name=3DDescription>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY aLink=3D#fdfcff bgColor=3D#ffffff link=3D#990000 text=3D#000000 =
vLink=3D#be6c08>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><A name=3DTop></A></P>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D640>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD noWrap vAlign=3Dtop width=3D190><IMG align=3DtextTop =
height=3D70=20
            src=3D"cid:002401be0bdb$ae42a860$568f85ce default" =
width=3D180></TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D450>
            <H5>American Institute of Chemical Engineers</H5>
            <H5>Meetings</H5>
            <H5>1998 Annual Meeting Technical =
Program</H5></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<H2><BR><BR></H2>
<P>
<H2>Production of Nanoparticles of Controlled Size and =
Composition<BR><BR></H2>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D4>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop>By:</TD>
        <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
            <DL>
                <DT><STRONG>Kevin B Stavens</STRONG>=20
                <DT><STRONG>Ronald P Andres</STRONG> =
</DT></DL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dtop>Presented at: <A =
href=3D"../sessions/08D02.htm">Session=20
            201 - Production of Nanoparticles of Controlled Size and=20
            Composition</A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D100%>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD noWrap vAlign=3Dtop width=3D150><A =
href=3D"../techprogram98.htm"><FONT=20
            face=3DArial size=3D2><B>Online Technical =
<BR>Program</B></FONT></A></TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D100%>&nbsp;<STRONG>Abstract:</STRONG>=20
            <P>A gas aggregation type aerosol reactor is used to produce =
pure=20
            metal andmixed metal particles with diameters in the =
nanometer size=20
            range. Thenanoparticles produced in this reactor are =
spherical and=20
            have a narrow sizedistribution and a uniform composition. =
The=20
            reactor makes use of adistributed DC arc to evaporate metal =
atoms=20
            from a liquid melt held insidea carbon crucible. The metal =
atoms=20
            diffuse through the hot plasma regionof the arc and are =
entrained in=20
            a rapidly moving inert gas stream whichcools and dilutes the =
metal=20
            vapor. This stream expands through a nozzlewhere it is =
further=20
            cooled and diluted by mixing with a room temperaturestream =
of inert=20
            gas. Downstream of this quench region the nanoparticlesare =
scrubbed=20
            from the gas phase by bubbling the particle aerosol through =
aliquid=20
            containing surface active molecules. These surfactants =
adsorb=20
            ontothe particles to produce a stable colloidal suspension. =
This=20
            DistributedArc Cluster Source is capable of producing =
nanometer size=20
            particles of mostmetals and mixed metal clusters of =
practically any=20
            composition. [*****]</P>
            <P><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</P>
            <P><STRONG>Author Information:</STRONG></P>
            <TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D4>
                <TBODY>
                <TR>
                    <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
                        <DL>
                            <DT>Kevin B Stavens=20
                            <DT>Purdue University=20
                            <DT>1283 Chemical Engineering Bldg.=20
                            <DT>West Lafayette, IN 47907=20
                            <DT>Phone: (765)494-4053<BR>
                            <DT>Fax: (765)494-0805=20
                            <DT>Email: <A=20
                            =
href=3D"mailto:stavens ecn.purdue.edu">stavens@ecn.purdue.edu</A></DT></D=
L></TD>
                    <TD width=3D20>&nbsp;</TD>
                    <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
                        <DL>
                            <DT>Ronald P Andres=20
                            <DT>Purdue University=20
                            <DT>1283 Chemical Engineering Bldg.=20
                            <DT>West Lafayette, IN 47907=20
                            <DT>Phone: (765)494-4047<BR>
                            <DT>Fax: (765)494-0805=20
                            <DT>Email: <A=20
                            =
href=3D"mailto:ronald ecn.purdue.edu">ronald@ecn.purdue.edu</A></DT></DL>=
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D100%>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD noWrap vAlign=3Dtop width=3D70><ALIGN=3DTEXTTOP></A></TD>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle vAlign=3Dtop>
            <CENTER>
            <P>
            <HR width=3D100%>
            <BR><FONT size=3D-1>[<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/welcome/about.htm">Elements</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/communication/news.htm">News</A>]=20
            [<A =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/member/index.htm">Member=20
            Services</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/meeting/index.htm">Meetings</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/publication/index.htm">Publications</A>=
]=20
            [<A =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/educate/index.htm">Education=20
            Services</A>] [<A =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/ccps/">CCPS</A>]=20
            [<A href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/cwrt/">CWRT</A>] [<A=20
            href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/dippr/">DIPPR</A>] [<A=20
            href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/diers/">DIERS</A>] [<A=20
            href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/pdxi/">pdXi</A>] =
&nbsp;</FONT><BR><FONT=20
            size=3D-1>[<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/employment/index.htm">Career &amp;=20
            Employment Services</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/government/index.htm">Government=20
            Relations</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/customer/index.htm">AIChE<I>xpress</I> =

            Service Center</A>] [<A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/communication/contact.htm">Feedback</A>=
]=20
            [<A =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/welcome/sitemap.htm">Site=20
            Map</A>] [<A href=3D"#Top">Top</A>]&nbsp;</FONT><BR><BR>
            <HR width=3D100%>

            <P></P></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D100%>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft noWrap vAlign=3Dtop width=3D25><IMG height=3D34 =

            src=3D"cid:002601be0bdb$ae5b1260$568f85ce default" =
width=3D30></TD>
        <TD><FONT size=3D-2>American Institute of Chemical =
Engineers<BR>Your=20
            suggestions and other feedback on the AIChE Web Site are =
welcome.=20
            </FONT>
            <P><FONT size=3D-2><A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/docs/welcome/coprigh.htm">&copy;</A> 1997=20
            American Institute of Chemical Engineers. All rights=20
            reserved.</FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_0031_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0--

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <002401be0bdb$ae42a860$568f85ce default>
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------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <002601be0bdb$ae5b1260$568f85ce default>
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------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE0BA1.0257C7E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 05:19:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA27886;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:17:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:17:21 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981109131711.0090209c freeway.net>
X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:17:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: Re; El Cheapo Variable Power Supply for Nanoparticle
  Generation
Resent-Message-ID: <"3WbFo2.0.Zp6.XjkHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24332
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:41 AM 11/9/98 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>Ed:
>
>A light dimmer control/switch and a full-wave bridge rectifier makes a
>convenient variable
>power supply to get the 30 to 40 volt, 5 to 10
>ampere D.C. needed for arcing Palladium in H2O or D2O to make the
>nanoparticles.
>
>
>Regards,   Frederick
>
I have a 10-amp variable autotransformer that can go to 140 V to which I can
add a bridge rectifier.  I have a number of rectifiers with sufficient
amperage-voltage ratings. All I need are very specific directions for making
nanometer sized deposits.  One of my desires is to coat nanometer sized Pd
or Ni (or both) onto ceramic beads (a la CETI).  There is a company called
Nanophase Technologies that can do things like this but I feel that it would
cost $$$$ which I am reluctant to spend considering my track record in
successful experiments in this area. 

Thank you for your input.

Ed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 05:57:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA04219;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:56:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:56:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199811091355.HAA07414 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:54:47 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"GBvpJ1.0.r11.KIlHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24333
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]

>>Look at the phase vs time data.  There are literally hundreds of
>>accurate data points.  Assuming the object is moving along some
>>constant vector against the background stars, the equation of
>>phase shift vs time as seen from the telescope is quite easy to
>>derive, and only contains about four unknown parameters.  One of
>>these parameters is the one of interest - the linear velocity
>>against the background stars.  The other parameters give its
>>direction, initial position, initial angle of telescope w.r.t.
>>the sky etc.  With so many data points, it should be easy to get
>>an accurate fit for all parameters.  I had seriously considered
>>doing it but now I have completely lost interest.  But if someone
>>wants to provide the raw data, I am willing to do a fit to it.
>
>
>Well, I still don't see any way to do accurate orbital fixes from the data
>at hand. To be on the safe side I rechecked
>
><http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/>
>
>It appears to me the ATCA antennas are located colinearly.  The array needs
>to be on crossed tracks in order to get phase info in two dimensions,
>right?  It is just not designed for close-in work.  Note that the
>indications are the "satellite" might have a significant N-S component to
>its motion.

***{It appears crystal clear that the signal found by "Paul Dore," "K.F.
Benton," and "Jay Oka," if such a signal were not a hoax, could not have
come from an Earth satellite or from anything in a tightly bound solar
orbit: such an object would have been moving too rapidly, and would have
passed across the beams of their paraboloid antennas in far less time than
they had the signal under observation. (Since you are discussing the
possibility that the Australian radiotelescope array was focused on the
same signal, then by implication you are accepting the validity of their
observations, if only for the sake of argument.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I have to admit that I too have pretty much lost interest in this.  It is
>way too late to do much about anything, as far as I can see.  Nothing left
>but speculation at this point.

***{Speculation is the beginning of science, Horace, and for that reason
you should resist the temptation to agree with those who have been calling
for an end to this thread. Whenever someone makes a factual claim that
violates accepted scientific paradigms, conformists get their panties in a
tangle, hurl charges of scientific incompetence and/or fraud, and urge that
the discussion be dropped. They do that because they place a higher value
on fitting in than they place on truth, and perceive that a continuation of
the discussion may lead to alterations in their socially expedient belief
systems. That prospect makes them uncomfortable, because they do not want
to find themselves being regarded as kooks by their friends and associates.
The proper response of those who place a higher value on truth than on
fitting in is to simply ignore the cacklings of the conformists, and
proceed with the discussion until clarity is achieved. At that point,
methods of scientific hypothesis testing will be revealed.

I would note, by the way, that discussion of this supposed SETI hit is no
different than any other discussion of anomalous scientific data. Every
person who reports such data is routinely accused of perpetrating a hoax
very shortly after he opens his mouth. This applied to Pons and
Fleischmann, to James Griggs, to Joseph Newman, and on and on. The first
stage of the process of evaluating such claims always involves the search
for ways to decide whether the data are real or made up, and requires that
we consider both possibilities. Several of the people who have been posting
on this topic do not seem to realize this, and continue to call for an end
to this discussion, on grounds which if applied consistently would have
destroyed every thread that has focused on anomalous scientific claims and,
in the process, would have destroyed this group. The fact of the matter is
that this subject is thoroughly on topic, and is cut from precisely the
same bolt of cloth as the various other topics that have been discussed on
this group in the past.

--Mitchell Jones}***

   I suppose more observations of the area
>couldn't hurt though.  8^)

***{Absolutely correct. If we assume for the sake of argument that this
signal is real, and originates from somewhere near the line of sight to EQ
Peg, then there are two possibilities:

(1) Assuming that the object is in a classical inertial orbit, we can
roughly calculate its minimum distance. The first hit on this signal at the
EQ Pge coordinates was on Sep. 17, by the Project Phoenix staff at Arecibo.
If we take the "Paul Dore" hit on Oct. 22 as real, then we can do a
triangulation type of calculation: the Earth moved for 35 days at 18 miles
per second, between those two hits. That gives a baseline of about
18(35)(24)(3600) = 54,432,000 miles. The Arecibo beam width would be B =
4200(21/30500) = 2.89 arcmin = .048 deg. "Paul Dore's) beam width would be
B = 4200(21/1000) = 88.2 arcmin = 1.47 deg. (Note: I am now using a
constant of proportionality of 4200 rather than 4000, because I finally
found a book that gave the actual value. The value of 4000 that I used
earlier was an estimate.) Taking half of each beam and adding them
together, we get .759 deg as our estimate of the total deviation from
parallel for these two beams. Assuming the baseline is perpendicular to one
of the beams and the other is at 90 - .759 = 89.241 deg in order to do a
rough estimate, we find that the beams would intersect at a distance d =
54,432,000/cos (89.241) = 4.1091x10^9 miles = 44.18 A.U., which puts the
minimum distance to the source at a bit beyond the orbit of Pluto. [Of
course, this is a very rough estimate: the baseline does not, in fact, make
a right angle with either leg, and so the actual minimum distance would be
a bit less than calculated above, perhaps even at the orbit of Pluto, or
around 39 A.U. (What are the coordinates of Pluto right now?)]

(2) Assuming that the "suncruiser" photos indicate the presence of an alien
starship near the sun, and that either it or a relay beacon which it has
sent out is the source of this signal, then we must consider the
possibility that the source is *not* in a classical inertial orbit. A
technology more advanced than our own might, for example, include
*antigravity*. In that case, it would be possible that this source is under
power, and is programmed to hover on the line of sight between earth and EQ
Peg, to provide a signal source at constant celestial coordinates, as
viewed from Earth. In that case, the above rough calculation would not
apply, and the signal source could be anywhere on the line of sight from EQ
Peg to Earth.

Possibility number (2), above, is one I find quite intriguing. It suggests
that the carrier at 21 cm is intended for the purpose of communicating with
Earth. But why? Well, the aliens may have secret confederates on Earth, and
transmit information to them via radio on that frequency. But, in that
case, the carrier would not be there except when it was being modulated to
carry actual information. Having it there in the unmodulated condition
would invite discovery, and hence indicates that the purpose is *not* to
communicate in secret with confederates on Earth. Then what *is* the
purpose? The answer is obvious: the unmodulated carrier is there to invite
discovery and, thus, communication *with anybody on Earth*. The logical
response would be to beam a modulated signal back toward EQ Peg on that
frequency, and see what happens. I would try it in English: "Hello out
there. We read your signal loud and clear. Do you have anything to say to
us? Over." If we got a response, it would be the beginning of a
mind-boggling adventure, and would be guaranteed to transform the world.

Of course, these are merely possibilities. But pointing an amateur dish at
this signal and transmitting a response to see what happens is an
experiment to test these possibilities, and so this thread has already
progressed from the point of speculation to that of hard science. As such,
it is fully legitimate even by that standard.

--Mitchell Jones}***

 >
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 07:38:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA29644;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:32:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:32:29 -0800
Message-Id: <199811091531.JAA09795 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:30:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: EQ Peg hoax
Resent-Message-ID: <"AusrM3.0.2F7.DimHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24334
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Dear Jim,
>
>I am not quite sure what you are driving at in your recent postings
>to Vortex.  As I read it, you are saying: the signals observed in
>Australia could not have come from a geosynchronous satellite
>(as indeed they couldn't, as these all have to be on the celestial
>equator and EQ Peg is at Dec +19), and nor could they have come
>from any other satellite, because these all use spread-spectrum.
>Therefore it must have been an ET signal.
>
>This was a CW signal, which you say would be ideal for interstellar
>communication.  On what grounds?  We use spread-spectrum for
>GPS and around the solar system as CW is impossible due to
>Doppler effect, dispersion etc.
>
>If I was looking for ET signals I would use wideband receivers and look
>for pulse modulation including simple pseudo-random binary sequences.

***{It depends on the kind of ET's you are expecting. SETI expects signals
from planets orbiting nearby stars, reflecting civilizations similar to our
own which are still in the phase where lightspeed RF transmissions are a
favored form of communication. However, note that an interstellar
civilization must of necessity have greater than lightspeed methods of
travel and, thus, would find radio transmission unsuitable to their
purposes. (To grapple with such a possibility, we must assume that
Einstein's "universal speed limit" can be somehow overcome, and that some
method of signal transmission is possible at speeds vastly in excess of the
speed of light. Without it, the existence of an interstellar civilization
would not be possible.) Representatives of such a civilization could be in
our own solar system and, if they use radio transmission, it would be to
communicate with a backward population such as the one here on Earth. They
would be unlikely to be familiar with the nuances of such systems, just as
we are unfamiliar with the nuances of communication via smoke signal, or
the fashioning of flint arrowheads. And that, in turn, suggests that to
argue that they would not use a carrier wave type of signal is invalid. We
are likely to be more sophisticated than the ET's in the areas of primitive
technology, just as they are going to be more sophisticated than us in the
area of advanced technology. Thus I would *not* expect the use of pulse
modulated signals. I would expect a basic, old fashioned AM signal with a
full-blown carrier wave, because that is the simplest form of radio
communication.

Moreover, simplicity is not the only reason for expecting this. If there is
truth to the thousands of reports of sightings of "flying saucers," "giant
triangles"--such as the mile wide "black triangle" that was sighted by more
than 15,000 people in Arizona last year and virtually ignored by the mass
media--then it would seem that ET's are struggling to get our attention,
and are not being very successful. In such a context, the putting up of a
simple carrier wave based radio transmission from a fixed celestial
coordinate such as EQ Peg would be a plausible communication attempt. (I am
reminded of the struggle of the western nations to get the attention of
Japan, in the 1830's and 1840's. Nothing seemed to work, because the
shoguns did not want their people to know of the existence of the west. The
reason: they feared the cultural effects of such information. Result: we
finally had to basically hit them over the head, which is what Commodore
Perry did in 1853, when he sailed a fleet of "black ships" into Tokyo
Bay. The mile wide black triangle that took a leisurely cruise over most of
Arizona last year may have been the aliens' attempt at something similar.
Thus far, however, the ET's haven't found a way to get past our wall of
disbelief, maintained with the strong assistance of world governments, who
appear committed to a multi-billion dollar campaign of misinformation and
disinformation. The ET's may, in fact, be on the verge of concluding that
this is the planet of the retards. If they do, then they may eventually
throw up their hands in disgust and decide to exterminate us and use this
pretty planet for themselves. That would be a fitting conclusion of our
governments' attempts to keep us in ignorance: since we have permitted
parasites to rule us, extermination may very well be what we deserve.)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>You think that the Australian signal had to be ET because it was
>constant, but on his Web site Ray Norris specifically states that the
>'interference' varied in amplitude as if passing through the antenna
>lobes, so it _was_ moving against the celestial background.
>
>We should all be very grateful to Ray for devoting some telescope
>time to this, instead of indulging in carping armchair criticism.
>
>Anyway let's call it a day on this topic.
>
>Cheers, George.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 08:59:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26078;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:53:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:53:08 -0800
Message-ID: <364725F1.49B2 ca-ois.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:27:13 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New newsgroup: alt.sci.amateur
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981108173420.3181F-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3A223DCB6A74"
Resent-Message-ID: <"skRUM1.0.ON6.qtnHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24335
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.

--------------3A223DCB6A74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William Beaty wrote:
> 
> I just stumbled across a newsgroup-creation message from 8/31/98, for
> ALT.SCI.AMATEUR, intended for discussion of amateur science topics.  It's
> about time!
> 

(snip)

> 
> Binaries not allowed and posters
> are encouraged to use email or point to Web sites for binaries having to
> do with science projects. While rocketry and chemistry are legitimate
> topics, plans for bombs of any type are explicitly off topic.

I hear there is some kind of pro-active law on the books nowadays making
the discussion
of the mechanism of nuclear weapons over the internet illegal. This is a
blatant violation of the First Amendment on the part of gov't. I hasten
to be among those  trampling on such a proactive law by publishing the
attached gif depicting the mechanism of an H-Bomb.

To gov't "lurkers" who may be out there,

Bug off.

Jim Ostrowski

--------------3A223DCB6A74
Content-Type: image/gif; name="H-BOMB.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="H-BOMB.GIF"
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--------------3A223DCB6A74--



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 09:03:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA22739;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36471E8E.55AE5ACD css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:55:42 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: Einstein-Pole Shift-Analysis Method
References: <1.5.4.32.19981107104224.00e44d04 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kjwqB1.0.DZ5.JznHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24336
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> Last paragraph states the analysis method. Data?

This was discussed here extensively not more that a year ago.  You might be able
to gleam some information out of the archives.  In short there are several books
on the topic that try and reconstruct data to support the hypothesis, but IMHO
none that I've read make the issue any more conclusive.  As with all things,
anything is possible, but there are BIG pieces of the puzzle missing that are
filled in only with more theory by the various authors.  The fact is there are
several factors that could contributed to the possibility such an event
happening.  The icecap buildup may only be an element or a resultant of
something else happening such as the inversion of the planetary magnetic field
and/or a large asteroid strike.  Who knows, perhaps a domino effect with all
three.  The thread died out somewhere at this point in the discussion because it
had no supporting data to go further.  I would recommend reading the archive,
keyword search "Fingerprints of the Gods".  If there is any insight that we
missed, I would not mind discussing the topic again, but not really interested
in repeating.

Besides, if the icecaps are the problem, why all the fuss about global warming? 
8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 09:17:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30991;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:05:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:05:32 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26cd04b5104 [208.228.222.183]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:11:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook- speed of light.
Resent-Message-ID: <"YfreW.0.9a7.R3oHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24337
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:46 PM 11/6/98, dave dameron wrote:
>Hi Scott and all,
>At 01:27 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>At 09:51 11/6/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>>>....but also still use my 1945 edition (I
>>>bought for a few bucks)  because it has info not in the present edition.
>>
>>For the same reason, I've started a collection.  I now have 1929, 1953,
>>1970, and 1989.  The 1929 one is the 14th edition and it is about half the
>>size of what I used to think was the little one (like your 1945 one).
>>
>Could you please check the older volumes to see if the measured speed of light
>is getting more precise or actually changing?
>-Dave


In my copies the only thing changing seems to be the accuracy of the
observation:

299796000 +- 4000 m/s  (1944 edition)
299792458 m/s          (1993-4 edition)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 09:59:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA15855;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:47:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:47:33 -0800
Message-ID: <009a01be0c08$925d1cc0$568f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: products (http://www.nanopowders.com/NanoPowdersproducts.htm)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:43:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE0BCD.BFC03AC0"
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: <"stvxv2.0.bt3.rgoHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24338
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_004F_01BE0BCD.BFC03AC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lots of 50 nanometer(and up)Palladium powders.

http://www.nanopowders.com/NanoPowdersproducts.htm

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE0BCD.BFC03AC0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="products.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="products.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nanopowders.com/NanoPowdersproducts.htm
Modified=C0C57832080CBE0102

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE0BCD.BFC03AC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 10:22:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30482;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:20:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:20:03 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b26ce1e13dd2 [12.72.131.201]>
In-Reply-To: <002d01be0b90$de710ea0$588f85ce default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:16:22 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Colloidal Palladium Water Dispersion and 254 Nanometer UV
Resent-Message-ID: <"2RL3y1.0.CS7.J9pHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24339
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick -

   >  If the nanoparticle Palladium Sol disperses well in
   >  D2O or H2O, the next experiment might be to
   >  immerse a 254 nanometer (4.88 ev photons)UV
   >  Lamp in the solution to see if photolysis of the D2O
   >  causes in O/U reaction Palladium.
   >
   >  A link to a UV lamp supplier was sent earlier.
   >
   >  The UV Lamps/Bulbs used to erase EPROMS may
   >  work also.

Couldn't you just set it out in the sun?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 10:28:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00387;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:26:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:26:35 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26c52d3d74f [208.228.222.18]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:32:53 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Vince's questions re: SETI signals
Resent-Message-ID: <"S4qNA1.0.p5.QFpHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24340
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:47 AM 11/6/98, VCockeram aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/04/1998 16:44:01 Pacific Standard Time,
>jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
>
>> Also SETI expects the signals to come accurately from a star
>>  system, not several degrees away.  And they mainly look at
>>  sun-like stars that are rather close.  If you do the
>>  calculation for the power that must be transmitted at the
>>  remote star system to be detectable at earth, the value is
>>  horrendous.
>
>A couple of what if questions here:
>(1)  Assume the carrier signal is transmitted from an interstellar craft at
>      frequency of 1420 Mhz on a heading towards the solar system.
>
>(2)  How fast would that craft be travelling towards us, (the solar system)
>with the observed frequency at about 1450 Mhz?


If F is the observed frequency (e.g. 1450 MHz), f the actual frequency
(e.g.1420 MHz), and u the velocity towards earth, we have a blue shift:

   F = f (1+u/c)/(1-(u/c)^2)^0.5         (1)

Let K = (F/f)^2, then from the above I derive (derivation available upon
request):

   u/c = (k-1)/(k+1)                 (2)

Note: if the object is going away we have a red shift:

   F = f (1+u/c)/(1-(u/c)^2)^0.5            (3)

from which I get:

   u/c = (1-k)/(1+k)              (4)

Using your sample numbers I get:

  k = (1450/1420)^2 = 1.0427

  u/c = 0.0427/2.0427 = 0.0209

  u = 6.27 x 10^6 m/s

>
>(3) Could the rate at which the signal is dopplering down be an indication as
>to the rate of deceleration?


Yes. In fact, as I showed earlier, it could be an indication of a
decreasing deceleration if we can believe the three observations:

27-OCT-98 07:15 1453.075 MHz   RA 23 31 48    DEC 19 55 58   (Dore)
31-OCT-98 17:30 1452.187 MHz   RA 23 31 52    DEC 19 56 15  (Jay Oka - Tokyo)
03-NOV-98 14:39 1451.800 MHz   RA 23 31 50.51 DEC 19 56 16.8  (ATCA - Australia)

An alternative explanation is the signal is accelerating away and red
shifting.  Onother is that the signal is drifting.  The most likely
explanation given is that three different signals were observed.  The only
observation that can be trusted is the last.  That observation, if it shows
no frequency drift downward during the period of observation, may be
sufficient on its own to rule out the acceleration/deceleration hypothesis.

The signal was observed for about 19 minutes I take it.  If so, then the
drift would only be  about (2.275 MHz per 175 hrs)(19 min) = 4117 Hz during
the observation period.  I don't know if that can be determined.


>
>(4)  Assuming the craft launch point was EQ Peg, would not the signal source
>be off center from EQ Peg due to the stars motion since the date it was
>launched?  (the 60's?)

The signal would most likely be off center due to choice of a least energy path.

>
>(5)  Assume that the craft is powered by a fusion torch, and assuming it's on
>an intercept with the solar system and undergoing a braking burn, would the
>torch (exaust) be visible with an optical telescope.
[snip]


If within 100 million miles we should be able to see a large interstellar
craft from the sun's reflection alone. A fusion burn should produce
hydrogen or helium lines which should be visible.  If the observation is of
an earth satellite then surely we can see it optically by sunlight,
depending on altitude and time of day.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 10:30:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00417;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:26:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:26:37 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26cc6800451 [208.228.222.183]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:32:58 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"2UhNJ1.0.R6.SFpHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24341
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:23 PM 11/9/98, John Winterflood wrote:
>At 23:34 8/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>It appears to me the ATCA antennas are located colinearly.
>
>Yes this is correct.
>
>>The array needs
>>to be on crossed tracks in order to get phase info in two dimensions,
>>right?
>
>At the same instant in time yes.  But since the earth is turning,
>after 6 hours we are getting phase information from the dimension
>at right angles to the first.  There are enough data points to
>get a value for phase shift rate at these two points 6 hours apart
>and thus we have one value for N-S rate, and a second for E-W rate.

I am confused.  I missed someting about the data.  I thought there was only
about 19 min phase data. From the web site
<http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/>:

Technical details of the observation:

       Position observed: (J2000) RA 23 31 49.51, Dec 19 56 16.8
       Resolution: 4096 channels over 4 MHz bandwidth, centred on 1453 MHz
       Time of observation: 98 Nov 2, UT 10:23 - 10:42
       10s integration time,
       All six antennas of the ATCA, equivalent to 54-m diameter antenna
       Mr. Dore's claimed detection frequency was 1453.07512Mhz plus or minus
       about +400 Hz (although subsequent
       amateur "confirmation" appears to be at 1453.833600 MHz)



>
>But that is not the way one would tackle the problem.  One would
>derive the equation, do a curve fit over all the points, and the
>result would give all the values of interest - velocity w.r.t
>background, direction if you wanted it, etc. There IS enough data
>there to answer the question.


Well, yes, I suppose there may enough data to determine fixed angular
velocity against the background stars, but my point was it would take
multiple accurate coordinate fixes, several days apart, to determine
orbital parameters (if there be such), and that amount of information is
not in sight.


>
>How good the fit was compared to the precision of the measurements
>would also indicate whether the motion was constant velocity
>(as expected for the derived equation) or showed some acceleration
>against background.  If a constant velocity, then the likely
>circular orbit and distance from earth could be guessed.


Yes, assuming a circular orbit, as you say.  A few minutes worth of data,
or even 6 hours worth, won't give a very accurate picture, though, will it?
If there really is 6 hours worth of data, and the object remains within a
few degrees of a fixed star position, that is a pretty far out orbit
though.  A good measure of angular velocity would tell where to look for it
now.  Could be interesting.


>
>>I have to admit that I too have pretty much lost interest in this.
>>It is way too late to do much about anything, as far as I can see.
>>Nothing left but speculation at this point.
>
>The data still exists and may be processed.  This will answer
>the interesting question of whether the source was moving w.r.t
>the background stars (an almost certain and non-interesting
>result) or not moving (still a very interesting result but
>rather too unlikely to be worth the effort).


If the effort is made to do this will we have anything that anybody cares
about or can use in any way?  I wonder if a computer program already exists
to do the calculation?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 11:04:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15686;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:02:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:02:44 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:02:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199811091902.LAA29712 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI (not about the EQ Peg thing)
Resent-Message-ID: <"fvJXi3.0.zq3.JnpHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24342
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 01:43 PM 11/08/98 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
>>
>even with compression waveforms by using solitonic techniques it
>>is possible to send non dispersive signals through dispersive mediums.  The
>>only drawback is that the propogation velocity is slower.  This is because
>>you end up with a solitonic transverse waveform.   ;-)
>>
>>IOW, EM waves ARE, those slower waves!
>>
>>Ross Tessien
>
>
>You are saying that a solitonic gravity wave [or solitonic aether
>compression wave] becomes EM?
>
>Where does that put the scalar wave then, or the EM longitudinal wave? Are
>they just different names for 'gravity waves' or 'aether compression waves'?
>
>

They are all different names for different geometries of compression waves
in aether.

You know what sound waves are in air.  And so you know that you can have
planar compression waves in air and that those would also be sound, except
that they would remain planar.  Technically, all sound waves disperse and so
are essentially spherical and expand.  but, if you had an infinitely large
wall producing the compression waves, then they wouldn't disperse.

If you imagine an infinitely large set of three walls, generating sound
compression waves, in three orthogonal planes, you would chop the entire
infinite volume up into little compression cubes.  Standing waves.

That, is spacetime (a simplified version of it anyway).

Next, if you inject a puff of the medium into a huge expanse of that same
medium, you generate a smoke ring vortex.  If you study that geometry of
compression wave you see that it is just another compression wave in air,
the medium we are considering.  but that is actually a solitonic waveform.
It is dispersive, but in a non linear way.

So despite the sound compression wave energy dispersing, the refraction due
to density variations leads to a compression front at the lead, an expansion
perpendicular to the direction of smoke ring advance which compresses the
surrounding air away from the center of the smoke ring, then the external
atmosphere springs back again into a convergent motion.  But, the smoke ring
has advanced during this time, so the convergent compression wave slams into
the rear of the smoke ring and the velocity has been amplified (ergo the KE
too).  

We converted the PE compression of the expansion wave into KE in a
converging pressure front.  But then that begins to ram into itself due to
sort of cylindrical convergence (it is between spherical and cylindrical and
follows the approximate shape you notice with your eyes from a smoke ring
donut vortex.)

That curves the compression front into the rarefaction at the rear of the
vortex, and so the KE is directed forward into the center of the smoke ring
donut vortex.  The higher velocity of the compression wave leads to it
ramming through the center of the donut, and slamming into the leading edge
of the smoke ring thus causing the vortex to advance further forward, while
at the same time compressing that leading edge region and causing the
expansion of the air once again.

It is a continuous process.

The trick is to now imagine the compression cubes of "spacetime", and the
donut vortex both in the same medium at the same time.  What ensues is that
the cubes become deformed like in an Escher drawing, and they take on the
geometry of the donut vortex.

That, is the manner in which a photon distorts spacetime.  But when you boil
it all down, all you really have are waves in aether.

The reason EM is slower, is because that compression wave energy must be
communicated around the vortex loop of the smoke ring.  Whereas a simple, ie
~planar or spherically expanding, compression front can move directly
through the spacetime topology.  

So spacetime is just one topology of wave energy ringing in the ocean, a
photon is a different geometry of wave energy moving through that same
ocean, and particles are yet a third geometry of spherical resonance ringing
in that same ocean.

To get from the smoke ring vortex of a photon, to a fundamental particle
(electron), all you do is to push that center of convergence of the smoke
ring back inside of itself to form a truly spherically convergent resonance.
This has a centermost dot, or sphere, of convergence, whereas you could see
how the photon blasts through the center in a continuous motion.  The
spherical convergence allows "particles" to decouple from moving through the
ocean, and to come to a rest.

Photons are created when an electron drops into tighter regions in an atomic
valence because that process emits a burst of aether, just like blowing a
smoke ring.  

All exothermic reactions are aether emissive.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 11:32:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26523;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:31:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:31:12 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:30:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199811091930.LAA01996 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Longitudinal waves? WAS Re: SETI
Resent-Message-ID: <"BS38C3.0.EU6._BqHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24343
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>> signals, or longitudinal pulsations of aether?"
>>
>>Are you talking about 'longitudinal waves'? Is this the same as a
>>'scalar' wave? I've seen devices purported to produce/detect scalar
>>waves, but no real background as to exacly what these scalar or
>>longitudinal waves are. Anybody care to explain this? What are the
>>purported properties of these waves?
>>
>>Kyle R. Mcallister
>
>***{The normal usage of the term "longitudinal wave" is for purpose of
>contrast to the term "transverse wave." The distinction is between two
>types of wave motion. In one type, the oscillations  that occur at a fixed
>point in space are perpendicular to the direction of motion of the wave.
>These types of waves--an example would be garden variety water waves--are
>referred to as "transverse waves." In the other type of wave, the
>oscillations that occur at a fixed point in space are parallel to the
>direction of motion of the waves. These types of waves--an example is sound
>waves--are referred to as longitudinal waves or, more descriptively, as
>compression waves. --Mitchell Jones}***
>

Sound waves are compressional waves which are "longitudinal"

Waves on the ocean are waves at the interface of two different mediums,
where they have very different acoustic impedances.  So most of the wave
energy in the water is internally reflected, leading to the propogation of
the surface wave forward.  That is a transverse wave.

In the bulk of a medium, there is no interface from which to reflect.  But,
non linear refraction leads to internal reflection of wave energy.  Thus,
you can form a smoke ring vortex as one example.  That waveform is also a
transverse wave, but you have to follow the compression motions to see this.



Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 11:59:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25868;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981109194743.00673450 atlantic.net>
X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 14:47:43 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Kurt Johmann <johmann atlantic.net>
Subject: Asteroid and Comet Impacts (was Re: Einstein-Pole
  Shift-Analysis Method)
Resent-Message-ID: <"u_I-V.0.4K6.AZqHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24344
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com> writes:

>The icecap buildup may only be an element or a resultant of something
>else happening such as the inversion of the planetary magnetic field
>and/or a large asteroid strike. Who knows, perhaps a domino effect with
>all three. The thread died out somewhere at this point in the discussion
>because it had no supporting data to go further. I would recommend
>reading the archive, keyword search "Fingerprints of the Gods". If there
>is any insight that we missed, I would not mind discussing the topic
>again, but not really interested in repeating.

It is perhaps interesting to note, that Graham Hancock, who wrote
"Fingerprints of the Gods", in which he advocated pole-shift as the
explanation for the loss of the ancient civilization detailed in that
book, has since renounced the pole-shift explanation in his latest book,
The Mars Mystery.

According to Hancock, impacts from comets or asteroids, is a much better
explanation for the loss of that presumed ancient civilization.

Although I was initially interested in the pole-shift explanation, in
part because of the "Fingerprints of the Gods" book, I have since then
bought and read about a half-dozen books on the subject of comet and
asteroid impacts, and, like Hancock, have found it a much better
explanation.

The overall best book on the subject, that I read, is "Rogue Asteroids
and Doomsday Comets" by Duncan Steel (Steel is a professional astronomer,
in Australia). Hancock's "The Mars Mystery" is okay, being more about
the impact threat than about Mars.


Kurt Johmann
--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 12:43:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16913;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:41:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:41:45 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26d04b7a196 [208.228.222.179]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:48:07 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
Resent-Message-ID: <"cj-dr3.0.884.9ErHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24345
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:26 PM 11/8/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>Here is the data from Ralph Pope from a test on 11/6/98, duration 1 hour 15
>minutes:
>
>Input power was 16.6 amps, 200 volts = 3300 watts (3.3 kW). The conversion
>factor is 3413 BTU/kWH, so the power level was 11,263 BTU/hour
>
>Output power: The wind speed was 1500 - 1600 CFM, he took the lower number,
>1500. The room temperature was 60 deg F, the outlet temperature was 74 deg F,
>Delta T 14 deg F. 1500 CF * 1.08 conversion factor * 14 deg F = 22,680
>BTU/hour output.
>

There must be a really incredible air conditioning system to maintain a 60
deg. room temp against a 7 kw heat source for 1.25 hrs.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 12:49:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04172;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109154529.007e1ca0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:45:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Asteroid and Comet Impacts (was Re: Einstein-Pole
  Shift-Analysis Method)
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981109194743.00673450 atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6toov.0.411.NIrHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24346
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



   At 02:47 PM 11/9/98 -0500, Kurt Johmann wrote:

>According to Hancock, impacts from comets or asteroids, is a much better
>explanation for the loss of that presumed ancient civilization.
>
>Although I was initially interested in the pole-shift explanation, in
>part because of the "Fingerprints of the Gods" book, I have since then
>bought and read about a half-dozen books on the subject of comet and
>asteroid impacts, and, like Hancock, have found it a much better
>explanation.
>
>The overall best book on the subject, that I read, is "Rogue Asteroids
>and Doomsday Comets" by Duncan Steel (Steel is a professional astronomer,
>in Australia). Hancock's "The Mars Mystery" is okay, being more about
>the impact threat than about Mars.
>

  There is some evidence to support Tom Van Flandern's 
"Exploded Planet Hypothesis" which would account for a
serious planetary shift of Mars.

   More infor is available at 
http://www.metaresearch.org/announce/near-challenge.htm

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 13:05:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26359;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:00:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:00:21 -0800
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <35960e0b.3647575b aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:58:03 EST
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, Storms2@ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Blue: Storms: CF debate , Storms 1993 paper 11.6.98
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84
Resent-Message-ID: <"kx8u8.0.WR6.aVrHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24348
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In his debate with Ed Storms, Dick Blue noted (on 6 Nov 1998, in Rich Murray's
fwd, Message-ID: <36435ACE.3AC0 earthlink.net>) that there is a huge gap
between the energy range at which nuclear reactions operate and the one in
which chemical reactions operate.  Blue commented that it's big MeV vs. little
eV and the twain hardly ever meet.  

Hardly ever?  Are there any cases where they do meet?  

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 13:56:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13268;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:52:28 -0800 (PST)
From: UNIR2B1 aol.com
Message-ID: <6b62ff13.3647608c aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:37:16 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: re: Einstein-Pole Shift-Analysis Method
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 2.5 for Windows
Resent-Message-ID: <"uG4JT2.0.8F3.OGsHs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24349
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I think it was a "time traveller" caller on Art Bell who said that the
pyramids were placed by extraterrestrials to impart dynamic balance to the
earth--possibly to avert such a crust shift by stabilizing the cetrifugal
momentum "rigid masses" of the crust, and/or to counterpoise imbalances in the
polar ice caps (this could have been *one* purpose among others). 

--Russ

In a message dated 98-11-07 05:36:26 EST, you write:

>Subj:	 Einstein-Pole Shift-Analysis Method
>Date:	98-11-07 05:36:26 EST
>From:	atech ix.netcom.com (Dennis C. Lee)
>Reply-to:	vortex-l eskimo.com
>To:	vortex-L eskimo.com
>
>Hi;
>
>I think my Icecube Cutter/Transport is still a good idea.
>
>5/5/2000:
>
>>  Twelve years before Mr. Brown's book Cataclysms of the Earth was
>>published, Albert Einstein was writing a Foreword to a book called
>>Earth's Shifting Crust, by Prof.  Charles H. Hapgood.  Prof. 
>>Hapgood's book is about a pole-shift that took place around 6,000
>>years ago.  Einstein wrote:
>>
>>  I frequently receive communications from people who wish to con-
>>sult me concerning their unpublished ideas.  It goes without saying
>>that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. 
>>The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr.
>>Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity,
>>and-if it continues to prove itself-of great importance to every-
>>thing that is related to the history of the earth's surface.
>>  A great many empirical data indicate that at each point on the
>>earth's surface that has been carefully studied, many climatic
>>changes have taken place, apparently quite suddenly.  This,
>>according to Hapgood, is explicable if the virtually rigid outer
>>crust of the earth undergoes, from time to time, extensive
>>displacement over the viscous, plastic, possibly fluid inner
>>layers.  Such displacements may take place as the consequence of
>>comparatively slight forces exerted on the crust, derived from the
>>earth's momentum of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the
>>axis of rotation of the earth's crust.
>>  In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is
>>not symmetrically distributed about the pole.  The earth's rotation
>>acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces
>>centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the
>>earth.  The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in
>>this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a
>>movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body,
>>and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.
>>  Without a doubt the earth's crust is strong enough not to give way
>>proportionately as the ice is deposited.  The only doubtful
>>assumption is that the earth's crust can be moved easily enough
>>over the inner layers.
>>  The author has not confined himself to a simple presentation of
>>this idea.  He has also set forth, cautiously and comprehensively,
>>the extraordinarily rich material that supports his displacement
>>theory.  I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating,
>>idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself
>>with the theory of the earth's development.
>>  To close with an observation that has occurred to me while writing
>>these lines: If the earth's crust is really so easily displaced
>>over its substratum as this theory requires, then the rigid masses
>>near the earth's surface must be distributed in such a way that
>>they give rise to no other considerable centrifugal momentum, which
>>would tend to displace the crust by centrifugal effect.  I think
>>that this deduction might be capable of verification, at least
>>approximately.  This centrifugal momentum should in any case be
>>smaller than that produced by the masses of deposited ice. 14
>>
>>14 Hapgood, Earth's Shifting Crust, foreword by Albert Einstein.
>>
>>         311
>
>
>Last paragraph states the analysis method. Data?
>
>
>Regards;
>Dennis
>
>
>Tall Ships
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:00:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13983;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:56:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:56:31 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:53:04 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Alien signals as noise
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811091655_MC2-5FA7-EEBF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"av_8u.0.PQ3.EKsHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24351
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I do not know much about information theory, but I have read a little textbook
theory and I know something about data compression algorithms. A basic rule is
that the more data is compressed, the more it resembles noise. Consider our
own television signals. The earliest ones were easy to decode; the signals
from geosynchronous satellites are highly compressed. It stands to reason that
an advanced civilization would use the most efficient compression and the
fastest transmission rate they are capable of, assuming they are communicating
with a spaceship or colony of their own beings. (If they are trying to
communicate with us, they would slow down and send a simple signal.)

Mitchell Jones writes:

     If there is truth to the thousands of reports of sightings of "flying
     saucers," "giant triangles"--such as the mile wide "black triangle" that
     was sighted by more than 15,000 people in Arizona last year and
     virtually ignored by the mass media--then it would seem that ET's are
     struggling to get our attention, and are not being very successful.

This seems highly unlikely to me. If they were struggling to get our attention
why would they fly over Arizona? They could come and hover over New York City
or Washington D.C. and they would surely get our attention! They could blanket
the entire radio spectrum with a repeated tone for two hours. The number
15,000 is probably exaggerated. It may be that many people are repeating
gossip, or a large group is suffering from a mass delusion, like the folks in
the Aum cult and other religious fringe groups. Either that, or the ET's do
not want our attention and they happen to be flying over Arizona for their own
reasons.


     In such a context, the putting up of a simple carrier wave based radio
     transmission from a fixed celestial coordinate such as EQ Peg would be a
     plausible communication attempt.

If it was a deliberate effort, no advanced civilization would have any
difficulty communicating with a very strong signal that we could not possibly
miss. Even we could broadcast a deliberate, strong, unmistakable signal to any
nearby star or planet, and we discovered radio only 100 years ago.


     (I am reminded of the struggle of the western nations to get the
     attention of Japan, in the 1830's and 1840's. Nothing seemed to work,
     because the shoguns did not want their people to know of the existence
     of the west.

This is an interesting reading of Japanese history. My impression is that the
entire country was in an uproar for many years before the Perry expedition.
They were debating how to deal with Western incursions. They feared something
like the Opium Wars (1839-42, 1856-60). That is what they told Heusken and
other sympathetic observers. Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Japanese,
well aware of the implications of foreign penetration through observing what
was happening to China, tried to limit Western trade to two ports. In 1858,
however, Japan agreed to a full commercial treaty with the United 
States . . ."

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:02:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA13895;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:56:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:56:11 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:52:22 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Sample anemometer readings
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811091655_MC2-5FA7-EEBD compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"qGiLY1.0.wO3.wJsHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24350
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

When I test the Perkins-Pope (KF) device, I expect that the anemometer will be
the largest source of inaccuracy. Our instrument is a Pacer Industries, Inc.
model DTA 4000 digital thermometer and anemometer. I will be comparing it to a
more sophisticated instrument mounted inside the wind tunnel which measures at
several points simultaneously, and also with an old-fashioned Simpson handheld
inductive anemometer with a Pitot tube. (We may not have time for the
Simpson.)

I mounted the anemometer a tripod and placed it six inches away from a
three-speed electric fan (a 12 in. "Windmere" oscillating model). [I'm amazed
to see the input program correctly selected "Windmere" -- perhaps there's hope
for it after all, or perhaps they burdened the poor thing with loads of
peculiar vocabulary.]

I tested the fan at the three speed settings to see whether the wind speed
returned to the same values at each setting. The largest source of noise was
the presence or absence of a person or large object within one meter of the
fan. I found that whenever I stood up or sat down the readings change. By test
the KF device, I plan to place the impeller at the mouth of the wind tunnel,
and I will place the meter as far back & away from the wind tunnel as it will
reach. I think that if I stay a good distance away from the anemometer I can
measure to within 10 percent with confidence. With the electric fan, I found
the most variability at the low-power setting. Here are some sample readings
in fpm (feet per minute):

572
577
610
616
616
591
551    (This is when I stood up)
604
550

That is an 11% change, caused by me standing up about a half meter from the
anemometer. In more careful tests variation was roughly 5%. When I returned to
the low-power setting a half-hour later, I got these numbers:

594
602
585
577
586

Here is what happens when I leave the room, come back and sit down. These
readings were taken as rapidly as I could write them over a period of about 30
seconds:

623
630
619
612
604
581
578
580

It rapidly fell back to the previous range of readings for low power. During
the KF tests I will place the anemometer and wait one-minute for it to
stabilize before taking readings.

The electric fan was placed on a dining table in a small room about a meter
from a wall. The KF is in a large room with plenty of space at the mouth of
the wind tunnel. No large objects will obstruct the air as it leaves the
tunnel. To give you a sense of a CFM value: I held the anemometer about one
foot away for my face and blew at it with enough force to blow out a candle. I
blew at a constant and comfortable rate for about three minutes until I felt
hyperventilated. The anemometer registered 180 to 210 CFM.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:12:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17542;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:05:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:05:11 -0800
From: UNIR2B1 aol.com
Message-ID: <dec975ad.3647663b aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:01:31 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: "Speed" of light?  [was: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook- speed of light.]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 2.5 for Windows
Resent-Message-ID: <"pdlEE3.0.gH4.KSsHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24352
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-11-09 12:10:20 EST, you write:

To thouroughly admit my ignorance:  How could the speed of light ever
accurately be measured, if:

...the speed of light is considered a constant, and unrelated to the speed of
the emitting source, and 

...speed is a funcntion of time over distance, and distance involves moving
objects 

I.e., distance always means distance from something that is moving.  How could
you measure a constant speed, when *all* points of reference were subject to
velocities realtive to some fixed point which must remain forever imaginary,
since everything we know of is in motion?  How would one ascertain that the
mutual motion of two bodies between which light were travelling were moving
exclusively and precisely perpendicularly to the light ray being measured?
Why wouldn't one assume that tohse bodies were both involved in a mutual
longitudinal motion, colinear with the ray 
?  At best, it seems that we should express the speed of light as precise only
in relation to the average speed of the universe, which we cannot measure in
the absence of a verified Stationary Object (God?).  This, it seems, puts
aspirations about having discovered a "constant" in a narrower context. 

--Russ

--Russ


>Date:	98-11-09 12:10:20 EST
>From:	hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
>Reply-to:	vortex-l eskimo.com
>To:	vortex-l eskimo.com
>
>At 10:46 PM 11/6/98, dave dameron wrote:
>>Hi Scott and all,
>>At 01:27 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>>At 09:51 11/6/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>>
>>>>....but also still use my 1945 edition (I
>>>>bought for a few bucks)  because it has info not in the present edition.
>>>
>>>For the same reason, I've started a collection.  I now have 1929, 1953,

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:40:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28735;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:38:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:38:27 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:38:04 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <36476ea0.82969332 24.192.1.20>
References: <02f701be0b01$ad159c20$4f8f85ce default>
In-Reply-To: <02f701be0b01$ad159c20$4f8f85ce default>
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: <"08u8G3.0.v07.ZxsHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24353
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 8 Nov 1998 03:21:39 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>With heavier molecular species/ions present,this effect would be less. With
>a "bubble/vortex" radius r in the micrometer range, deuterons or
>deuteron-containing water molecules DHO etc.,at modest velocities v would
>easily separate from H2O and concentrate at boundaries such as in the Griggs
>Pump.
>
>Regards,    Frederick
I think you might be on to something here Frederick!



Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:41:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29752;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:39:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:39:56 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Purity Water Cavitation and Deuterium Separation.
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:39:49 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <36486f0b.83076599 24.192.1.20>
References: <033101be0b35$209720a0$4f8f85ce default>
In-Reply-To: <033101be0b35$209720a0$4f8f85ce default>
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: <"u0_B3.0.jG7.xysHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24354
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:30:32 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>Now then, when water goes down the tube it always creates a centrifugal
>vortex. Does it do this when forced under pressure through a capillary tube?
>IOW, when you do the vector maths,is it natural that drag/torque forces of
>a fluid flowing in a conduit create a vortex.
[snip]
You might find this site interesting.

http://www.evert.de/


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 15:56:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20973;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:50:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:50:03 -0800
Message-Id: <199811092349.RAA24328 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:48:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien signals as noise
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gg1uo.0.d75.h-tHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24355
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>I do not know much about information theory, but I have read a little textbook
>theory and I know something about data compression algorithms. A basic rule is
>that the more data is compressed, the more it resembles noise. Consider our
>own television signals. The earliest ones were easy to decode; the signals
>from geosynchronous satellites are highly compressed. It stands to reason that
>an advanced civilization would use the most efficient compression and the
>fastest transmission rate they are capable of, assuming they are communicating
>with a spaceship or colony of their own beings. (If they are trying to
>communicate with us, they would slow down and send a simple signal.)
>
>Mitchell Jones writes:
>
>     If there is truth to the thousands of reports of sightings of "flying
>     saucers," "giant triangles"--such as the mile wide "black triangle" that
>     was sighted by more than 15,000 people in Arizona last year and
>     virtually ignored by the mass media--then it would seem that ET's are
>     struggling to get our attention, and are not being very successful.
>
>This seems highly unlikely to me. If they were struggling to get our attention
>why would they fly over Arizona? They could come and hover over New York City
>or Washington D.C. and they would surely get our attention!

***{If they did that, how many thousands would die in the resulting panic?
How much looting would take place? How much of those cities would burn as a
result? Perhaps they are trying to do this in a cautious manner, in a way
that produces the smallest amount of collateral damage. --Mitchell
Jones}***

They could blanket
>the entire radio spectrum with a repeated tone for two hours.

***{That would jam the global positioning system and most of our
navigational beacons. How many ships would go on the rocks, and how many
airplanes would crash, if they did that? If they are friendly, they would
try to avoid such outcomes. (And if they were unfriendly, we would probably
already all be dead.) --Mitchell Jones}***

The number
>15,000 is probably exaggerated. It may be that many people are repeating
>gossip, or a large group is suffering from a mass delusion, like the folks in
>the Aum cult and other religious fringe groups. Either that, or the ET's do
>not want our attention and they happen to be flying over Arizona for their own
>reasons.

***{There have also been alleged sightings of "flying saucers," including
literally thousands of photographs taken, by tens of thousands of residents
of Mexico City during the last few years. If the sightings are due to "mass
delusion" and the photos are the work of hoaxers, then people are even more
stupid and irrational that even *I* think they are. Given my exceedingly
low opinion of mankind, that is quite a stretch. Of course, you may be
right: "Nobody ever went broke understimating the intelligence of the
people," to paraphrase a very old saying. --Mitchell Jones}***


>
>
>     In such a context, the putting up of a simple carrier wave based radio
>     transmission from a fixed celestial coordinate such as EQ Peg would be a
>     plausible communication attempt.
>
>If it was a deliberate effort, no advanced civilization would have any
>difficulty communicating with a very strong signal that we could not possibly
>miss. Even we could broadcast a deliberate, strong, unmistakable signal to any
>nearby star or planet, and we discovered radio only 100 years ago.

***{Yes, but as I indicated above, it would be easy to kill a lot of people
and incur a lot of hostility by an ill-considered attempt. If they are
basically friendly, they will be cautious. (Commodore Perry could have
leveled Tokyo with his guns, but he didn't.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     (I am reminded of the struggle of the western nations to get the
>     attention of Japan, in the 1830's and 1840's. Nothing seemed to work,
>     because the shoguns did not want their people to know of the existence
>     of the west.
>
>This is an interesting reading of Japanese history. My impression is that the
>entire country was in an uproar for many years before the Perry expedition.

***{The "uproar," in my view, was among the ruling elite over the impact
that opening up to the west would have, and for a very long time the
dominant faction was the one urging isolation. --Mitchell Jones}***

>They were debating how to deal with Western incursions. They feared something
>like the Opium Wars (1839-42, 1856-60). That is what they told Heusken and
>other sympathetic observers. Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Japanese,
>well aware of the implications of foreign penetration through observing what
>was happening to China, tried to limit Western trade to two ports. In 1858,
>however, Japan agreed to a full commercial treaty with the United
>States . . ."

***{History generally puts a favorable spin on the policies of a nation's
rulers, if their rule is not interrupted by radical opposition before the
history is written. This means that the rulers, who are invariably nothing
more than an elite of parasites riding on the backs of the people, almost
always have their policies placed in a favorable light: they are depicted
as benevolent protectors, concerned with the well-being of the people,
rather than as the bloodsucking, tyrannical vermin they really are. Bottom
line: it is not reasonable to expect Japanese history to paint the shoguns
as being motivated by a selfish fear that their power would be destabilized
by western contact. That simply isn't the way "history" gets written.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 17:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14882;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:55:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:55:29 -0800
Message-ID: <36479002.347D earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:59:47 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  11.9.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3ty541.0.Re3.1yuHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24356
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.4.98 
Date:    Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:14:12 -0500
  From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich,

     I noticed you have not yet sent out the response to Dick Blue that
I sent to you on Friday, concerning his last post.  This is fortunate
because over the week-end, it occurred to me there are several points
that I really would like to have included in this response.  In any
case, I would appreciate your either sending out the message found below
in lieu of the message I sent on Friday.  Even if you have already
forwarded that earlier message, I would appreciate your forwarding the
present message.

THANKS,  SCOTT

>Well, Scott, I thing we have wrung this for all it's worth.
>You are going to go on insisting that there is a quantum
>coherence for this system that I insist has no connection
>to reality.  

There is ample evidence that in solids what I am saying about coherence,
even approximate coherence, in a periodic system is a valid starting
point for understanding non-local phenomena.  The most striking examples
of this are normal conductivity (with the astronomically large
scattering lengths that are associated with this phenomenon),  Bragg
scattering of X-rays, the Mossbauer effect, and heat conduction.  I am
in good company in believing that coherence plays a role in the
underlying description of the associated Cold Fusion phenomena.  In
particular, Julian Schwinger held a similar view.

>What you are unwilling to admit is that I am not interested in your theory
>because it does not connect to anything real.
>

Then I would suggest you are not dealing with the "real" situation.  PdD
is known to have the kinds of anomalous effects (for example associated
with its superconducting behavior) that are consistent with what is used
by the theory.  Your view may have relevance to many situations.  But it
has limited relevance to situations involving fully-loaded Pd.  It is
too bad that you are unwilling to bend your view.  I would suggest that
you might be trapped in your "own" worldview.  If this is true, it would
be appropriate if you would "attempt" to see beyond it, or, at least, at
the very least, mute a number of your unfounded criticisms.  I do not
believe you have either thought "seriously" about the potential effects
of periodic order or are willing to do so.  Until you do, possibly you
are correct: further discussion about the issue is not warranted.  
However, there is a corrollary to do this.  Before you criticize others
who have done this, I think you should examine more fully your
understanding of the "relevant" physics and why you believe your
criticisms are warranted.  To my mind, blind criticism without
justification serves no purpose, and it certainly detracts from the
relevant science.

>For example, you write Bloch wave functions for the
>separation coordinate of a bound system.  I don't know
>how you can do that.  Clearly you have not shown those
>wave functions to be eigenfunctions of the actual
>physical system under consideration.  

In fact, in an order-preserving scenario (associated with the
energy-less self-interaction that we have described), the true
eigenfunctions are indeed Bloch states of the bound system!  In point of
fact, the relevant question is concerned with fluctuations and the
nature of the self-interaction.  With regard to the stagnant
(non-fluctuating systemy), we have shown that in the presence of the
Coulomb interaction, including two-particle repulsion, the relevant wave
functions (which have Bloch symmetry with respect to the separation
variable) do minimize system energy, relative to wave functions that do
not possess this symmetry!  If you want further details of the
calculation, you can check our either our WEB page
(http://www.angelfire.com/va/schubb) or our ICCF7 Proceedings
paper.   

>The binding
>energy forces a functional form at great distance from
>the well to be the familiar exponential decay -- not
>a Bloch function.

It is still true that exponential fall-off occurs in each unit cell.
However, this fall-off repeats itself.  The reason for this is because
recoil of the solid is allowed at every point, on all timescales.  Then,
it is NEVER POSSIBLE on any timescale to determine in which unit cell of
the solid the nucleus is located.  For this reason, the exponential
fall-off occurs in all unit cells at each periodically equivalent
location.  The mechanism that is responsible for the recoil is
electromagnetic in nature (and it is here that separability between
electromagnetic and nuclear interactions is violated).  This is a "zero
energy" transfer process because the periodic lattice may absorb and
transmit momentum without changing its energy.

>
>You insist that the periodic potential arises from the
>"self interaction" but I point out that there are other,
>stronger interactions that must be considered once you
>get as far from r=0 as one unit cell spacing.  

The dominant processes at T=0 that I have alluded to do not change the
energy of the system.  The other processes raise the energy of the
system. These are not mere assertions.  They are based on the idea that
the solid may spontaneously recoil.  Your view simply ignores this
possibility.  The term recoil is a simplified expression for a more
general concept: boundaries of the solid may change without altering the
energy or periodic order within the solid;  equivalently, the "location"
of the nucleus (and nucleons) becomes completely indeterminate.

>The fact that you assume something about those other interactions
>does not make it the right thing to do.
>

At T=0, in an order-preserving solid, they are the right thing to do.

>We also keep running into your concept that there is
>some grand symmetry requirement that constrains the
>interactions to your chosen set.  I don't recognize any
>such requirements as having bearing on the question.

Self-interaction that does not excite anything preserves the energy of
the ground state.  In a T=0 situation, the system is in its ground
state. These are basic assumptions of modern physic's view of "reality."

>Most real wavefunctions involve sufficient mixing of
>states that symmetries are seldom as pure as you assume.

These are not what are involved in a T=0, periodically ordered system.
What is foreign to you is the concept of a T=0, ordered solid.

>Of course, if you make all sorts of idealizations you
>can preserve whatever you want, but so what?

The T=0 behavior of an ordered solid is the key starting point for much
of what is understood about solid state physics at room temperature. 
The perturbations of this idealization are used to explain finite
temperature effects, in particular.  So, you are simply wrong to suggest
that this idealization has little relevance.  

>
>To make a Born-Oppenheimer separation and then use that
>as a justification for keeping other interactions out
>of the problem is, I would say, very circular reasoning.

Self-consistency is at the heart of much of what is understood about
many-body physics at it applies to solids.  Self-consistent field theory
is the hallmark of our modern understanding of electronic structure,
magnetism, conductivity, and a host of other phenomena.  It is not
"circular reasoning," per se.  It is a way of isolating effects, which,
when iterated return to themselves.  In this respect, it can be likened
to criteria that can be used to identifiy fixed points of highly
non-linear phenomena.

>Nature does not preserve the conditions that allow you
>to make certain assumptions.  If your assumptions break
>down, that's your problem.
>

Nature does define ground states that have particular rules.  If it can
be shown that the rules of an assumed ground state (and fluctuations
about the ground state) conform to observation, then the model of the
rules has some relevance.  The point is that the ground state can have
rules that uniquely preserve the conditions of the ground state.  When
this holds, the ground state becomes stable with respect to certain
forms of fluctuation.  The significance of this is that if Nature
prepares the system in such a way that the only forms of fluctuation
that are present preserve the ground state, then the ground state
becomes stable.  If the ground state is sufficiently stable,
interactions can occur.

>Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
>justify saying that everything has to remain in its
>ground state because it's at T=0.  Unless you have
>some infinite heat sink hidden in the lattice there is
>nothing to keep it at T=0 if there is an energy source
>present.

The question of how well the T=0 limit applies is a function of crystal
size, loading and energy gap.

>
>Dick Blue
>
>

Possibly, it would be useful to back track a little.  In particular, it
might prove useful to ask a fundamental question:  when is it possible
for interaction of any sort to occur.  Quantum Mechanics has rules for
this.  I outlined this in my last message.  Possibly, it would be useful
for you address my comments in detail with regard to this point.

Scott Chubb

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 17:21:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23551;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:15:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:15:13 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110091711.00ac5460 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:17:11 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b26cc6800451 [208.228.222.183]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6J7pJ1.0.vl5.XEvHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24357
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:32 9/11/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>I am confused.  I missed someting about the data.  I thought there was only
>about 19 min phase data. From the web site
><http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/>:
>
>Technical details of the observation:
>
>       Position observed: (J2000) RA 23 31 49.51, Dec 19 56 16.8
>       Resolution: 4096 channels over 4 MHz bandwidth, centred on 1453 MHz
>       Time of observation: 98 Nov 2, UT 10:23 - 10:42
>       10s integration time,
>       All six antennas of the ATCA, equivalent to 54-m diameter antenna
>       Mr. Dore's claimed detection frequency was 1453.07512Mhz plus or minus
>       about +400 Hz (although subsequent
>       amateur "confirmation" appears to be at 1453.833600 MHz)

Yes I noticed the 10:23 - 10:42 and didn't know what to make of it.
If you look at the time axis of the graphs they show 18 hours.  I
don't know which is correct.  I expect there is enough info there
to work out which is right. Or we could ask ... but again I have
lost interest!

I think you agree that 18hours should give a reasonable fix on
the satellite's proper motion.  Even the moon moves a significant
distance in that amount of time and satellites are almost bound
to be much closer than the moon.

>If the effort is made to do this will we have anything that anybody cares
>about or can use in any way?  I wonder if a computer program already exists
>to do the calculation?

No doubt it does, but given the data I am sure I could obtain an
accurate fit to it within an hour or two using the Mathematica
package.  But if it is only 19mins of data, then I agree with
you, it is insufficient to do a reasonable job.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 18:27:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12155;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:23:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:23:29 -0800
Message-Id: <199811100222.VAA08548 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 98 22:20:22 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cpeLp2.0.mz2.WEwHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24358
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>The electric fan was placed on a dining table in a small room about a meter
>from a wall. The KF is in a large room with plenty of space at the mouth of
>the wind tunnel. No large objects will obstruct the air as it leaves the
>tunnel. To give you a sense of a CFM value: I held the anemometer about one
>foot away for my face and blew at it with enough force to blow out a 
>candle. I
>blew at a constant and comfortable rate for about three minutes until I felt
>hyperventilated. The anemometer registered 180 to 210 CFM.

Jed,

 The meter is in FPM not CFM. The duct has to have  1.0  ft^2 cross 
section for the conversion factor to be unity. We in Bow and Pope in GA 
have 12" x 12" ducts.

Also, some of your variability is due to the fact that you do not have a 
channeled duct. You have an unshielded fan, which is not the same thing 
as a long duct. A duct will have far lower variability.

Good luck on the preliminary tests this week. 

Gene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 18:57:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23149;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:55:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:55:10 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110103925.00ac6e80 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:39:25 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"R7PLh.0.df5.DiwHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24359
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote :

>Yes I noticed the 10:23 - 10:42 and didn't know what to make of it.
>If you look at the time axis of the graphs they show 18 hours.  I
>don't know which is correct.  I expect there is enough info there
>to work out which is right. Or we could ask ... but again I have
>lost interest!

Well I decided to ask and here is Dr Norris's reply

>The time axis indicates roughly 10:25 to 10:40
>(the "10" appears on the left, but is supressed from the other axis
>labelling - just a foible of AIPS)

So you are right Horace.  There is only 19 minutes of data -
insufficient for any real determination of orbit.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 19:21:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00779;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:18:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:18:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981109211917.00989610 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 21:19:17 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
In-Reply-To: <199811100222.VAA08548 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"S75FC3.0.5C.P2xHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24360
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:20 PM 11/9/98 -0000, E.F. Mallove wrote:

>A duct will have far lower variability.

What kind of flow variation do you see across the width of the duct?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 19:33:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03678;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:28:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:28:01 -0800
Message-ID: <000801be0c59$1e1d1e40$4451ddcf craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:20:48 -0600
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 TAA03656
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gmlun1.0.Ov.1BxHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24361
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs


[...Much Snipped...]

>No doubt it does, but given the data I am sure I could obtain an
>accurate fit to it within an hour or two using the Mathematica
>package.  But if it is only 19mins of data, then I agree with
>you, it is insufficient to do a reasonable job.


The question I have, is how much work would it be to remove all doubt that the source of the radio emission is moving against the stellar background? If you can determine that the source of the emission is, indeed, moving against the stellar background, t

hen this case will be closed.

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 19:45:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08843;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:43:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:43:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199811100341.WAA22489 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 98 23:40:04 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_JCWD.0.1A2.GPxHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24362
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:

>What kind of flow variation do you see across the width of the duct?

It is certainly on the order of 10%, but it can go as high as 20%.  Ed 
has a better handle on those numbers, I think. Clearly the variation is 
high enough so that one would want the low input power and  high delta-T 
combination to be good enough to swamp any across duct variations -- e.g. 
nominal COP of 1.50 would be in that range.. We do not intend to stick 
with duct calorimetry indefinitely. That is merely a diagnostic. If we 
can see COP = 1.5 to 2.0 (ourselves) in duct testing (as Ralph and Gene 
Perkins saw many, many times) and then see that also in NERL  in duct 
testing, then we will go to even more convincing forms of calorimetry. Ed 
has made calibrations of the duct with resistance heaters that may, 
however, make duct testing more convincing in of itself than we had 
originally aniticipated. Lots of questions before this is nailed down.

Gene Mallove
NERL
 and 

Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Ph:  603-228-4516
Fax: 603-224-5975

  editor infinite-energy.com
http://www.infinite-energy.com



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 19:49:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11383;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:47:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:47:14 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:44:29 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811092246_MC2-5FB1-B879 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"rE12I1.0.Wn2.1TxHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24363
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Horace Heffner writes:

     There must be a really incredible air conditioning system to maintain a
     60 deg. room temp against a 7 kw heat source for 1.25 hrs.

The machine is installing in a corner of a steel building which houses a
machine shop and a large (2 meter tall) auto parts fabrication machine.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 19:53:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11519;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:47:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:47:25 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:44:43 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Alien signals as noise [OFF TOPIC]
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811092246_MC2-5FB1-B87A compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"GFBYO2.0.Vp2.ATxHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24364
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I suggested that if these aliens are "struggling to make contact" as Jones put
it, they could hover over New York City rather than Arizona. Jones explains
that they are not exactly struggling, they are carefully fine-tuning the
presentation by flying over a place where they know we will not believe
they exist, but at the same time they sort of want to let us know they are
here:

     If they did that, how many thousands would die in the resulting panic?
     How much looting would take place?

Probably none, I suppose, since a large fraction of the population already
believes they exist. I think it would work out like the opening scenes in
"Childhood's End." Anyway, these aliens remind me of CETI and cold fusion
scientists like Swartz who want to people to know yet not know about their
work. They want to be secret and famous; they want people to buy their
machines but never use them or look at them. The aliens have adopted this
coitus interruptus strategy.

Maybe the aliens are masters at psychology for not *quite* showing themselves,
and not *quite* convincing us -- just skirting the edge! -- when they could
convince the entire world in five minutes. Or maybe they are idiots who are
parading in front of the cacti in Arizona because they think the cacti are in
charge. More and more, they remind me of the CF scientists, who could be the
richest and most famous scientists on earth, with a $100 million each, and yet
who are mired in poverty and who spend their time kvetching, moaning, pissing
off investors, and blaming other people for their own self-imposed troubles.
Say! That's it! Those UFO are built and manned by CF scientists!


     Perhaps they are trying to do this in a cautious manner, in a way that
     produces the smallest amount of collateral damage.

Well, maybe these aliens are dumber than us, but if they feared causing a
panic I suppose it would occur to them to pick some method more obvious than
flying over Nevada but less intimidating than investing the Capital. Like, for
example, they could fly one small ship through New York Harbor.

I suggested the aliens might blanked radio with a signal for 3 hours.
Jones responds:

     That would jam the global positioning system and most of our
     navigational beacons.

I meant the commercial channels. Again, maybe these would be stupid aliens but
I suppose they would be able to distinguish the difference. A few hours
without talk radio and rock-n-roll would be a blessing.


     (Commodore Perry could have leveled Tokyo with his guns, but he didn't.)

That's silly! The Japanese were not the Chinese Imperial Navy. He couldn't
have gotten close. And even if he had, it would be like trying level London
with three wooden men-of-war  while fighting off 100,000 riflemen and tons of
obsolete but functional artillery. The British Navy blew up a small castle in
Satsuma but it was nothing like Edo. (Given their national personalities, it
is no surprise that this incident led to a strong, long-lasting bond of
friendship between the British Navy and the Satsuma clans.)


     The "uproar," in my view, was among the ruling elite over the impact
     that opening up to the west would have, and for a very long time the
     dominant faction was the one urging isolation.

I don't think so! The elite were not going around chopping up foreigners -- it
was the masterless samurai (ronin) and rabble rousers.

I wrote, "They were debating how to deal with Western incursions. They feared
something like the Opium Wars . . ." Jones responds:

     History generally puts a favorable spin on the policies of a nation's
     rulers, if their rule is not interrupted by radical opposition before
     the history is written.

Well, um . . . maybe, but these people *were* overthrown by radical opposition
because of the Western incursions, so I am not sure what this statement is
about.


     Bottom line: it is not reasonable to expect Japanese history to paint
     the shoguns as being motivated by a selfish fear that their power would
     be destabilized by western contact. That simply isn't the way "history"
     gets written.

But that *is* the way history is written! And that's the way it happened. They
were destabilized and tossed out within ten years. I do not understand this
comment. I think Jones needs a refresher course in 19th century Japanese
history. Anyway this is highly off topic, so I'll drop my end of the
conversation.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 20:08:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA16174;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:59:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:59:40 -0800
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:44:56 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Alien signals as noise
In-reply-to: <199811092349.RAA24328 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199811100045.RAA23026 smtp2.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: <"f23QQ.0.ey3.hexHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24365
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>>Mitchell Jones writes:
>>
>>     If there is truth to the thousands of reports of sightings of "flying
>>     saucers," "giant triangles"--such as the mile wide "black triangle"
that
>>     was sighted by more than 15,000 people in Arizona last year and
>>     virtually ignored by the mass media--

I missed the opening comments in this thread, but the so called "giant
triangle" over Phoenix was nothing special. True, lots of people saw it. I
read in the paper at the time a report from a guy here in Scottsdale who
was an amateur astronomer who had his telescope out at the time. He focused
in on the "points" and guess what -- they were ordinary airplanes or
helicopters ( I forget which) flying in a spread formation. Nobody in
Phoenix got excited that I know of. It was nothing.

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 20:46:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA29262;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 20:35:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 20:35:17 -0800
Message-ID: <19981110043517.8533.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 20:35:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"OWKcU2.0.897.5AyHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24366
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed, Gene et al:

I am sure that you know that both velocity and temperature can vary
over the cross section of the air flow in the duct. The velocity is
always smallest near the walls, yet most of the cross section is close
to the walls. Thus, if there is a 1" thick slow "dead" layer hugging
the walls, it occupies 44 sq. in or 30% of the total cross section.
That's already a "COP" of 1.3. if it's not taken into account. At the
very least, you should measure both quantities at several points. It
may turn out that the variations are not so large in your experiments,
in which case you can then get away with just a single measurement. If
the air is well mixed, its temperature will be uniform. However, in my
experience with air calorimetry, it takes good design to get uniform
mixing in a low aspect ratio (A = length/width) duct. I suspect Gene
knows lots about this. In the worst case you will have to measure at
many points.

If you do have good mixing, then you can check the measurements
against a heater resistor. In order for this method to be valid, you
have to demonstrate that the duct air temperature is uniform and not
dependent on the location of the resistor.

Believe me, because I know from experience, it is really easy to get a
hot (or cool) stream someplace in a short duct.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 21:05:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03505;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:02:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:02:56 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: mind-l onelist.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 21:01:09 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7617.494.18373536 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: BeOS Based PeeCee (fwd)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"v7RY6.0.Ps.-ZyHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24367
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Forwarded message, originally written by Bob Harman on 09-Nov-98 ***

"Hitachi To Announce BeOS Based PC Next Week"
http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/120981.html

-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 21:15:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08418;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:13:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:13:03 -0800
Message-ID: <3647CC5D.3E8A earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:17:17 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms:  CF debate 11.9.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ahKe2.0.O32.UjyHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24368
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: CF debate, Storms 1993 report
11.6.98
  Date:  Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:50:25 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Since this involves Ed Storms' responses on two different
subjects, I think I will split my response into two messages.

> > > Dick requires two conditions to exist before he will believe the claims:
> > > 1. Neutrons or other high-energy emissions must be produced at a level
> > > consistent with the claimed heat.  The agreed very low level of these
> > > emissions means to Dick that the excess heat can not caused by a nuclear
> > > reaction.
> > > 2. Heat must be made more often than not during all attempts.  The claim
> > > that most people use bad palladium, hence obtain negative results, is
> > > taken as a justification by believers for a selection process which
> > > stacks the deck in their favor .  This explanation is rejected and a
> > > statistical approach is repeatedly demanded.
> > >
> > > These requirements make any discussion very unproductive.
> > >
>
> >
> > Every time Ed Storms reinterprets my remarks a subtle, but significant,
> > distortion gets introduced.  If you read my suggested requirements
> > as being absolute you can, perhaps, see what I have been saying as
> > too rigid and unbending to allow for anything new that might reveal
> > itself in ongoing investigations.  It has not been my intention to
> > offer absolute pronouncements, but rather to call to your attention
> > what is presently the well-established truths concerning nuclear
> > reaction physics.  It is not that no one can propose some new and
> > unexpected phenomenon, but rather that we should expect them to make
> > a strong case for their claims and to suggest a means for resolving
> > apparent conflicts within the entire data set.
>
> Fair enough, I will take what appear to me to be pronouncements as just
> your style of debate. As for a strong case, this is, to some extent, in
> the mind of the beholder.  As for resolving conflicts, this is where we
> need your help.  We all agree that conflicts are present.  We now need
> some original thinking and perhaps a benefit-of-doubt to find a new way
> of approaching the problem. Just rejecting data is not good enough any
> more.
>
> > It is not sufficient to just decree that Storms cold fusion is
> > not the same as Blue cold fusion.  One may as well suggest that
> > cold fusion in New Mexico or Utah is not the same as cold fusion
> > in Michigan or that cold fusion on Thursday is not the same
> > as cold fusion on Saturday.  Indeed it makes little sense to
> > suggest that cold fusion is not the same as luke warm fusion.
> > I don't think one can rationally compartmentalize nuclear reaction
> > phenomena in quite the way Ed Storms chooses to do.

>
> Perhaps, but that sounds like a pronouncement to me.  Why not explore
> the possibility that fusion or any other nuclear reaction might be
> influenced by certain chemical environments.  The question then becomes,
> "what form would these environments need to have to produce the claimed
> behavior"?  Can we play a what-if game?

Fine with me!  I have been trying to get CANR advocates to join me in a
"what-if" game.  But that is pointless unless there are some rules we
can agree on such as what systems are involved (atoms, crystal lattices,
nuclei, and such) and what physics describes those systems (quantum
mechanics).  So I did make a pronouncement, but not to exclude any new
phenomena.  Rather I think it is important that we keep some contact
with orthodoxy.  By that I mean that I presume that nucleon numbers
are conserved, and that quantum perturbation theory can still provide
a framework within which to begin a discussion of CANR, just to give
two examples.

a > So what I am suggesting is that if radiation measurements and
> > calorimetry are, as claimed, being applied to one specific system the
> > two forms of measurements must be reconciled.  You can't just walk away
> > from the radiation results because you don't like them.
>
> No, I do not walk away.  I accept what nature is telling me.  There is
> very little radiation and nothing I can do will change this fact. Does
> this mean that nuclear reactions are not occurring, as you would
> conclude, or does it mean that the nature of the nuclear reactions has
> been changed by the environment? Is this question not worthy of
> exploration?  By exploration, I mean can you try to find a path between
> the conventional, which doesn't work, to a new position that might work.
> We need some ideas that can be tested.

OK this outlines an area within which we can discuss the claims for CANR
success.  In fact I have been trying, for years, to get a meaningful
discussion of how the chemical environment can influence a nuclear
reaction and what the nature of the phenomena would likely be.  It seems
to me the greatest reluctance to explore this area has been shown by the
advocates of CANR. As I have pointed out, there is a host of
observations on this topic that should not be ignored.

Let me initiate the discussion by a review of what I think it means to
say that the chemical environment alters a nuclear reaction process and
how one could possible expect to validate the phenomena that may arise.

A nuclear reaction, in this context, involves the rearrangement of
nucleons from a grouping as one set of nuclei to a different grouping
such that the total binding (among other things) is altered.  Since the
context requires a net energy release with no significant external
energy source present, we seem to be limited to the consideration of
exoergic reactions. Since deuterium is, at least in some studies, a key
ingredient, and 4He is often seen as a primary product it is natural to
consider the reaction d + d -> 4He + 23 MeV.

Now one of my remarks was that I see no reason to compartmentalize this
reaction on the basis of temperature in the chemical environment.  There
is no fundamental physics of which I am aware that links lattice
temperature to the nuclear system in a very significant way.  Now if you
are to assert a contrary opinion I would appeal to experimental
observations as a means for validiting one viewpoint or the other.  What
do we know about the effect of lattice temperature on nuclear reactions?

While much emphasis in the early stages of the cold fusion debate was
placed on the finding of some mechanism to reduce the coulomb barrier
between two deuterons, I frequently pointed out that success in that
regard would still not reconcile claimed observations with expectations
based on nuclear
reaction studies.  It is generally useful in this context to consider a
reaction as a two-step process starting with the formation of an
intermediate state at high excitation and ending with the decay of that
intermediate state to the final state in which all nuclear constituants
have returned to a state that is, at least, stable against further
regrouping of the nucleons involved.  Again I don't insist on this
approach, but simply wish to define a context for further discussion. 
If we can show that this will not work, it does advance the discussion.

In the case of deuteron fusion the said intermediate state will be 4He
at roughly 23 MeV excitation energy.  If you have an alternative you
would like to consider, please state it.

So my assertion, in this context, is that if fusion is initiated and
results in the regrouping of 2 pairs of nucleons into a single
four-nucleon cluster, we can make certain assertions as to likely final
outcomes under a variety of assumptions with regard to the chemical
environment and its possible influence.

First assumption to consider is, I believe, that the chemical
environment has no influence whatsoever.  I personally have observed
nuclear reactions in a metal matrix such as titanium, zirconium, nickel,
etc. and those observations are generally consistant with the
no-influence hypothesis. I am not alone in having made such
observations.

Furthermore I think we can understand there being no observable effect
on fusion by the surrounding chemical environment.  Thus it is not a
strange thing to consider in any respect.  It fits our general picture
of CANR processes.

Now Ed Storms, and others, suggest that we consider an alternative
picture involving, under certain conditions, very dramatic changes in
nuclear reation processes.  But the systems in which these changes are
presumed to occur are remarkable similar to systems in which, by direct
observation, no such effects are seen.  It is a puzzle at two levels. 
The chemical environment is "very ordinary", but the effect is very
dramatic.

Generally speaking, CANR effects are seen as perturbations on systems
that retain something very close to their unperturbed behavior.  Thus
one can implant a radioisotope in a crystal lattice and then observe its
subsequent decay, looking for effects on that decay that can be
attributed to the perturbing effects of the chemical environment.  The
Moessbauer effect is a fine example of just this class of phenomena. 
While the effect is very dramatic in some respects, it is important to
note that most of the gross behavior of the decay is hardly altered.

I would anticipate something similar to that behavior, should there be
a perturbing effect of a palladium lattice on the fusion of two
deuterons.  In particular such a perturbation is unlikely, I would
suggest, to totally supress the emission of neutrons. It is clear that
if the phenomena has the characteristics Ed Storms would ascribe to it,
we are not dealing with small perturbations. The claims for CANR
success, if they are correct, demand major alterations in nuclear wave
functions.  The choice, it seems to me, is to consider either unexpected
experimental difficulties or mindboggling theoretical problems.  I do
not get the impression that Ed Storms has the proper respect for just
what is required to accommodate his assessment of the experimental
evidence. He seems to think you can turn off neutron emission as easily
as turning off a light.  I don't think so.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov  9 21:41:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12734;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:29:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:29:16 -0800
Message-ID: <3647D01E.477B earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:33:18 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms: Takahashi and CF debate  11.9.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g7Syu1.0.u63.iyyHs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24369
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 10.31.98
  Date:  Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:12:47 -0500 (EST)
  From:  Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> If you will note of figure 8 in my review (Infinite Energy or the copy I
> sent you), you will see a comparison between the signal and background.
> The greatest difference between signal and background is at 4.5 MeV with
> a very minor difference at 7 MeV and a somewhat greater one at 2.45 MeV.
> Takahashi notes that this difference is only seen when excess energy is
> being produced. I think you are running out of wiggle room.

Out of wiggle room?  Far from it!  Let's review just how an NE213
scintillator detects neutrons.  Most of the neutron response involves
elastic collisions of incident neutrons with the resident protons in the
scintillation material. Such collisions transfer energy to the protons
in a spectrum which, ideally, is flat from zero out to the energy of the
incident neutron.  The response, to monoenergetic neutrons, would be a
step.  At the low energy end, it is distorted by nonlinearity in the
scintillator response and at the high end, the edge of the step gets its
corners knocked off by resolution limitations.

It is important to note that what remains is a monotonically decreasing
function that does not have an intermediate maximum!  The response to
gamma rays, on the other hand involves totally different kinematics and
can produce a bump in the pulseheight spectrum, such as the Compton
edge for 60Co you mention.   So what Takahashi records (as reproduced
in your review) is a pulseheight spectrum with one obvious broad bump
in the 4 MeV range and possibly something around 2 MeV and a very weak
signal(?) at higher energy.  This is, of course, the difference between
a spectrum taken for effect when there is "excess heat" and a background
spectrum recorded when there is no such excess heat.

As I noted the count rates are extremely low ( 2 counts per day) by the
time you reach the 7 MeV portion of the spectrum.  In this case the
background is likely dominated by cosmic ray events -- a phenomena that
may exhibit very long term variations in recorded intensity such that
it is ultimately quite difficult and time consuming to obtain a
completely satisfactory match for the purposes of background
subtraction.  Anything recorded at the level of 2 counts per day should
automatically be suspect.

As for the low-energy end of the spectrum, the ideal response as I
described it should extend right on down to zero pulse height, but
reality is that electronic noise comes to dominate the spectrum at some
point such that an electronic discrimination level must be set to roll
off the response at low pulse height.  Hence you may actually see a
maximum in the spectrum near this low-energy cut-off, but it is an
artifact of the electronics. In very long runs, such as are required for
the Takahashi results, the electronic discriminator may be subject to
drift-- frequently due to variations in operating temperature.  As a
result it is often difficult to achieve a clean background subtraction
right down to the cut-off. I would suggest that Takahashi's "low energy
neutrons" could well be that sort of an artifact, even if they escape
the earlier problem relating to variations in background radiation.

So we are left a large bump in the middle of the pulse height spectrum
that is said to be due to neutrons of 4-something MeV.  But suppose
there is a monotonic source of neutrons present as claimed.  What would
the pulse-height spectrum actually look like?  Let me suggest that it
would not look anything like these data.  Now you refered to Takahashi
as "an expert".  Do you know whether he has ever recorded a pulseheight
spectrum for 4 MeV neutrons, so he knows what it should look like?

> > Yes, there were two methods employed for part of the measurements, but
> > if you read the paper carefully you will learn that the crucial claims
> > for variations in activity all derive from just the Geiger counter
> > measurement!
>
> Yes, but both detectors showed the same behavior when they were
> compared.  The GM counter was then used for convenience. Even if the GM
> counter is not detecting electrons directly, it is detecting something
> which is proportional to the electron current. I do not see why this
> would be a problem.

The GM tube and the electrometer may well track until the actual
experiment is performed.  That does not prove that they will track under
all conditions. The GM tube is NOT detecting something that remains
proportional to the electron current.  There are too many intermediate
processes involved.  If you will look more critically at the
experimental conditions you will note that the most effective vacuum
pump in the system is actually the titanium smoke, and that the system
likely has leaks due to the required thin window for the GM detector. 
What that means is that the reactive titanium is likely changing
chemical composition.  That, as I noted, can make a big difference
in the GM response seen for a given level of tritium activity.

> > to be a gas-tight seal may actually leak helium like a sieve.
>
> The liquid was specified as vacuum pump oil. A stream of gas was
> constantly flushing the system.  Consequently, any helium that might
> enter was being flushed out. When no excess heat was produced, the
> helium content of the gas was always close to the detection limit.  The
> work of Bush, which supports Miles-Bush, used an all-steel system and a
> more sensitive mass spectrometer.  As a result the He background was
> smaller. Nevertheless, a significant He signal was always seen when
> excess heat was measured. Bush used an entirely different kind of
> calorimeter as well. Why do you presume that Miles, Bush and I continue
> to overlook the possibility of He leaks.  This is an obvious problem
> which has been handled very well by the experimenters.  It is only Blue
> who insists this possibility is real in the face of facts to the
> contrary.

The helium is being "flushed out" is it?  Estimate the velocity of the
gas stream and compare it to the diffusion speed for helium.  Helium
is so good at swimming upstream against a gas flow that some commercial
leak detectors depend on that for their operation!  As for "vacuum pump
oil" forming a helium-tight seal, don't bet the farm on that one either.
Miles-Bush certainly did not handle the obvious problem of helium leaks
very well in their initial series  of measurements.  They proceeded
as if they were totally unaware of the potential problems.  For example,
sending the control samples to Texas by air while the samples from
the electrolysis went by some form of surface transport (unspecified)
would, by itself, call the validity of the controls into question.

> First of all, have you read my review which I sent you?  Second, what
> you call "inconsistent claims" result as much from your unwillingness to
> accept any positive claims as from my lack of critical evaluation. I do
> not go into great critical detail in the reviews because they are
> designed to give an overview of the field and show where the details can
> be found.  As I mentioned in earlier discussions, the cited work contain
> a mixture of experimental error, which I address, and results which may
> be real and need to be included in our thinking about the field, at
> least for a while. The latest review serves two purposes: it is designed
> to show the skeptical reader the best of the work and how the obvious
> errors have been addressed, and it is designed to show people in the
> field some of the new discoveries and understanding. Suggesting unlikely
> possibilities, frequently in isolation from what was actually done, does
> not constitute a critical evaluation.

I am, at present, working my way through the reviews Ed sent me.  As
noted above I find the Takahashi neutron data less than convincing
evidence for much of anything, and the claimed rates are much too low to
be useful in any interpretation of the CANR process claimed to produce
watts of power. I don't understand why they are included in a review.

> Yes, negative data are useful.  However, two problems exist: first, we
> are trying to demonstrate what it takes for success, not how to fail;
> second, journal editors do not like to publish too much negative data.
> As a result, negative information is used to direct research, as is the
> case in every field, but it is not normally available to outsiders.
> Would you want to see data for every material that was tested for
> high-temperature superconductivity before you believe the phenomenon?

I find the analogy to the testing for HT superconductivity to be a bit
strained.  A determination of which materials showed the phenomena was,
of course, significant.  I don't see the same checking for differences
in materials as having played the same role in CANR investigations.
In fact the investigators have had great difficulty demonstrating
a robust effect in even a single material.  Then they must resort to
asserting that subtle, but recognized, differences between samples of
nominally the same material account for the failure to replicate
any results to a degree that goes beyond some general pattern.

> > > an exact comparison can not be made between different studies. All we
> > > can use are general patterns of behavior. It is important that we all
> > > see the same patterns, regardless of these variables.
> > >
> >
> > OK, so we are dealing with a phenomenon that is too variable to make
> > replication in detail possible.  I believe that is a very important
> > observation about CF claims, and it means that extra precautions are in
> > order in such addressing of the statistical aspects of the data.  You
> > can't just plow ahead using methods that are appropriate only for data
> > that is rather more well behaved.  When someone uses a phrase like
> > "general patterns of behavior", special precautions
> > should be taken to insure that the "patterns" are not just an artifact
> > being introduced during the data reduction process.
>
> Yes, Dick is correct. But to see the patterns, you must first take the
> trouble to examine the data as if it were free of error. Gradually, as
> the pattern becomes more robust, some of the data outside of the pattern
> can be examined for error to see if they are worthy of supporting a new
> pattern. This is a very gray area requiring holding different levels of
> opinion at the same time. Someone who thinks the phenomenon is nonsense
> in the first place would naturally think all positive results are caused
> by error, hence all patterns are the result of random variations.  This
> being the general view, it is very hard to use the available data to
> make a case.  Of course, this is why important discoveries are only made
> by a few people - ones who have the mental tools to use this process.

When it comes to seeing patterns in data, I seem to be better at it than
are many of the CANR advocates.  It just may be that the patterns being
overlooked by them don't support their claims, but rather indicate that
something else is going on.  For example, the very first evidence for
excess heat published by McKubre has a signiture that I saw as
indicative of electrical cross talk between signals.  No one else saw
the pattern! Strange to say it was never replicated, an observation that
is entirely consistant with my hypotheses regarding the origins of the
"effect." As for thinking all positive results are caused by error, it
is certainly appropriate to recognize that error may play a role in any
observation.

As for withholding judgement until the evidence becomes more robust,
I could agree with Ed on this point if, in tracking the history of CANR
claims, we saw a pattern that "becomes more robust."  If McKubre had
actually gotten to something "robust" why would he inform Scott Little
that there is little point in attempting a replication?  If CETI and
Miley had gotten to something "robust" why did the kits they sold not
lead to numerous replications?  If the electrolysis as practiced by Pons
and Fleischmann led to a "robust" result why can't we answer a simple
question regarding light vs. heavy water for the electrolyte?

My point is that we are no longer "up front" with these claims.  Many
early results were rejected because that was the proper way to treat
them. Pons and Fleischmann's claims regarding neutron detection were
clearly faulty.  De Nino's claims were clearly faulty.  Yamaguchi's
claims were faulty.  Do I need to run through the entire sad list?  Some
of the data that Ed Storms still references are not correct.  Before
there can be the sort of evaluation of CANR that Ed Storms claims to
desire, we have to get down to those results that may have merit.  As
for y rejection of claims on the basis of "very unlikely and generally
previously reduced errors", we are clearly dealing with something
that is "very unlikely."  It follows that unlikely error sources have
to be considered along with unlikely physical phenomena.  Until you
have something "robust" upon which to base your claims, I don't
see that my wild imaginings are further out of bounds than are
yours.

> > > Yes, the voltage is noisy .  The extent of the variation is severely
> > > limited by the low impedance of the power supply (about 0.01 ohm)
> > > compared to the higher impedance of the cell (about 10 ohm).  Therefore,
> > > the voltage has a random  variation of perhaps 100 mW.  Over a period of
> > > time, as the cell conditions change, the average voltage slowly changes,
> > > as you surmise. This noise is averaged by many measurements and the
> > > drift has no effect because the voltage is measured at regular
> > > intervals.
> >
> > Ed Storms, shame on you!  You just committed a very big oops!  I hope
> > this was just a slip of the bits.  Let's review some basic electrical
> > circuit theory.  There are two types of ideal power sources to be
> > considered -- an ideal voltage source which maintains a constant voltage
> > at its output independent of load, or an ideal current source which
> > maintains a constant current from its output independent of the load.  I
> > specifically said I was considering "constant current" excitation of the
> > electrochemical cell.  That means, I presume, that the power supply is
> > operated in the constant current mode.  That power supply darned well
> > better not have a low impedance as you suggest.  It should have as high
> > an output impedance as can be practically achieved in order to insure
> > that the total circuit impedance, supply + cell, is nearly independent
> > of the cell portion.
> >
> > What you describe is a voltage supply, with low impedance such that
> > essentially all the impedance is in the electrochemical cell.  Indeed
> > that will maintain the cell voltage constant within +/- 100 mV as
> > you suggest.  However, the cell current will not be constant unless the
> > cell impedance is constant.  Are you as confused about this as it
> > appears?  Perhaps you simply do not know what the power input to your
> > cell is.  Please assure us that you know the difference between a
> > constant voltage supply and a constant current supply.  Which do you use
> > in your experiments?
>
> You are right, I did not explain this very well.  At constant current,
> the voltage is free to change by any amount within the capability of the
> power supply.  The problem is how fast can this change take place.  The
> output of the power supply has a capacitor which prevents rapid changes
> in voltage. As a result, as the resistance of the cell changes, both
> voltage and current fluctuate, thereby causing the rapid voltage changes
> to be damped. Both current and voltage are measured at the cell and the
> values are averaged over many readings taken for about a minute.  As a
> result, these random fluctuations are averaged and only a net drift in
> value is seen. It has been suggested that these random fluctuations are
> not properly measured, hence the applied power is in error. If
> calibration is done using electrolytic power, the suggested error is
> common to both the calibration and the condition of excess power.
> Therefore, it will cancel out when the difference is taken.

Oh my, what a can of worms is lurking in those words.  Electric power
is the instanaeous product of current and voltage.  Averaging the
voltage and the current over a period of the order of a minute before
forming that product is potentially a source of error.  Acknowledging
the fact that the power supply may not be capable of maintaining
constant current under a rapidly flucuating load is yet another
potential source of error.  In the face of such possibilities it becomes
even more important that calibrations be performed under conditions that
match, with arbitrary precision, the operating conditions of the
experiment. That, I fear, is an ideal that is extremely difficult to
achieve.

> Before Dick has a chance to raise this possibility, suppose the amount
> of random fluctuation increases as the palladium becomes fully loaded,
> i.e. when the supposed special condition forms. Further suppose, the
> error caused by these random fluctuations increases in such a way that
> the measured applied power is smaller than the actual power.  The result
> would be an apparent excess. Actually seen is a gradual increase (not
> decrease) in applied voltage (constant current) as loading increases. In
> addition, we would have to believe that many different types of power
> supplies and data acquisition systems can suffer from this effect and
> that palladium is able to initiate this error regardless of its size or
> shape, and then only when a critical composition was achieved. The
> question is, "How willing are you to accept this remote possibility
> instead of accepting the claims for excess energy"?

I reread the above several times because, it seems, Ed Storms is making
my case for me!  What he is asserting, I suppose, is that given enough
different systems suffering from a variety of systematic errors the
pattern for CANR would be washed out by the experimental differences,
if there were not a real physical phenomena involved.  As I noted
long ago, that actually would be the case were it not for the "post
selection" of results.  The actual experimental average for all
excess heat measurements is essentially zero.

Now, one important feature of experimental science is that while there
is only one way to make a correct measurement there is an infinite
variety of ways in which to screw up that measurement.  I don't believe
that there is likely one total explanation for all the CANR claims.
Obviously the methods and the results are both too varied for that
to be the case.  I think it is important to note how little agreement
there is, in detail, about the way in which "excess heat" manifests
itself.  There literally is no pattern to hang ones hat on, so the
minor variations in experimental protocols and equipment may well
be a dominant factor in the outcomes, just as Ed Storms suggests.

> These experiments do have some shortcomings including the ones noted by
> Dick. Once boiling is achieved, the power applied to the cell is noted
> by a computer readout and the amount of vapor being produced and
> collected is recorded. The claim is that, at this time, more water is
> being lost as vapor than is justified by the applied power. On the other
> hand, problems do exist.  The vapor can contain droplets; the
> calorimeter is complex, requiring an uncertain calibration; and the data
> published by the experimenters are not sufficiently detailed to allow a
> proper evaluation to be made. Attempts to duplicate the work at NHE were
> not successful for various reasons.  Consequently, I do not address
> these claims in my recent review. They are not useful for demonstrating
> the phenomenon to skeptics and they are only interesting because they,
> if true, further confirm a positive temperature coefficient.

If these results are as marginal as Ed and I now appear to agree the
best thing for everyone is to take them off the table.  They should get
no further consideration.  However, Ed can't quite let them go.  He
wants to say they confirm something about his experiments.  Let me
suggest that tying good experiments to bad experiments cannot possibly
strengthen the Storms position.  If there is "a positive temperature
coefficient" and someone has a robust experiment on which to test that
hypotheses it ought to be a piece of cake to demonstrate the reality of
said temperature dependence. The fact that Ed wants to refer to a
questionable result may be telling us something about just how "robust"
the evidence is.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 00:01:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA14347;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:00:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:00:26 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110160226.00ac33c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:02:26 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
In-Reply-To: <000801be0c59$1e1d1e40$4451ddcf craig>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"EYYW33.0.5W3.QA_Hs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24370
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 21:20 9/11/98 -0600, Craig Haynie wrote:
>The question I have, is how much work would it be to remove all
>doubt that the source of the radio emission is moving against
>the stellar background? If you can determine that the source
>of the emission is, indeed, moving against the stellar background,
>then this case will be closed.

Since the phase information is so limited, I think it is mostly
a matter of looking up the references given in the web info
about the telescope to find out the nature of the sidelobes
of the antenna.  Then it should be possible to say whether the
pattern of motion indicated by the satellite signal amplitude
variation was due to the rotation of the earth, or due to
satellite motion against the stellar background.  As for me,
I consider this case to be closed anyway.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 02:04:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA29602;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:03:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:03:40 -0800
Message-Id: <199811101003.EAA02388 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:01:51 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien signals as noise [OFF TOPIC]
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Bq121.0.SE7.xz0Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24371
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>I suggested that if these aliens are "struggling to make contact" as Jones put
>it, they could hover over New York City rather than Arizona. Jones explains
>that they are not exactly struggling, they are carefully fine-tuning the
>presentation by flying over a place where they know we will not believe
>they exist, but at the same time they sort of want to let us know they are
>here:
>
>     If they did that, how many thousands would die in the resulting panic?
>     How much looting would take place?
>
>Probably none, I suppose, since a large fraction of the population already
>believes they exist.

***{Believing that a powerful and potentially malevolent entity may exist,
and being confronted by it, are quite different things. We all believe in
the existence of grizzly bears, for example, and yet we go through our
daily lives without being in a state of panic because we are confident that
we are not about to come face to face with one. If, however, we were to
wake up one fine morning and find grizzly bears standing over our beds,
panic would quickly ensue. Similar considerations apply to gigantic and
potentially hostile alien spacecraft. Many New Yorkers may believe in the
existence of alien spacecraft in our skys while going calmly through their
daily lives, but this is only because they are confident that they are not
about to encounter such spacecraft. If, however, members of the lunch hour
crowd in Manhattan look up from their meals tomorrow to discover a fleet of
mile wide black triangular spacecraft passing silently overhead, I have a
suspicion that a large numbers of them will quickly call up images from the
movie *Independence Day.* Result: they will suddenly experience an urge to
be somewhere else, and many people are likely to die in the resulting
crush. The reason for such reactions is simple: while many New Yorkers
doubtlessly believe that aliens exist, they also entertain strong
suspicions that aliens may be malevolent in their intentions.

What that means is that if the aliens exist and want to announce themselves
without loss of life, the proper course of action would be to slowly
desensitize the human population to their presence, by bringing about
slowly growing numbers of sightings of larger and larger craft, while
carefully avoiding hostile or threatening behavior. The result of such a
policy would be to slowly instill in the population of Earth the idea that
such craft are real and, most importantly, that they are non-threatening.
Eventually, as the final event of such a policy of gradualism, the aliens
would be able to pass a fleet of mile-wide black triangles slowly over
Manhattan during the lunch hour without causing panic. At that point, their
existence would no longer be subject to denial, and that goal would have
been accomplished without unnecessary loss of life. If we assume that the
reported sightings are real, then that is apparently exactly what they are
doing.

--Mitchell Jones}***

  I think it would work out like the opening scenes in
>"Childhood's End." Anyway, these aliens remind me of CETI and cold fusion
>scientists like Swartz who want to people to know yet not know about their
>work. They want to be secret and famous; they want people to buy their
>machines but never use them or look at them. The aliens have adopted this
>coitus interruptus strategy.

***{No. If the aliens are real and non-malevolent, then they will announce
their presence to us in a manner calculated to avoid unnecessary loss of
life. There is nothing about such behavior that is difficult to understand.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Maybe the aliens are masters at psychology for not *quite* showing themselves,
>and not *quite* convincing us -- just skirting the edge! -- when they could
>convince the entire world in five minutes. Or maybe they are idiots who are
>parading in front of the cacti in Arizona because they think the cacti are in
>charge. More and more, they remind me of the CF scientists, who could be the
>richest and most famous scientists on earth, with a $100 million each, and yet
>who are mired in poverty and who spend their time kvetching, moaning, pissing
>off investors, and blaming other people for their own self-imposed troubles.
>Say! That's it! Those UFO are built and manned by CF scientists!

***{Or perhaps they are built and manned by creatures who are not merely
more technologically advanced than we are, but more morally advanced as
well. In that case, they will approach us with gentleness, and with
peaceful intentions. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     Perhaps they are trying to do this in a cautious manner, in a way that
>     produces the smallest amount of collateral damage.
>
>Well, maybe these aliens are dumber than us, but if they feared causing a
>panic I suppose it would occur to them to pick some method more obvious than
>flying over Nevada but less intimidating than investing the Capital. Like, for
>example, they could fly one small ship through New York Harbor.

***{You simply haven't thought this through carefully, Jed. You are talking
when you should be listening. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I suggested the aliens might blanked radio with a signal for 3 hours.
>Jones responds:
>
>     That would jam the global positioning system and most of our
>     navigational beacons.
>
>I meant the commercial channels. Again, maybe these would be stupid aliens but
>I suppose they would be able to distinguish the difference. A few hours
>without talk radio and rock-n-roll would be a blessing.

***{You are treating this issue too lightly. How to approach a species that
is inferior, yet intelligent, is not as simple a problem as you think,
providing there is a concern to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Of course,
if no such concern were present, then the solution would be simple: you
study the physiology of the inferior species, genetically engineer a lethal
bug that will kill them, and spray it on their planet like a pesticide.
Then, when the dieoff is over, you move in and take control. Since that
hasn't happened, it is clear that if we are being visited by aliens, they
are of the benevolent, morally advanced kind. For that, we can be grateful.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     (Commodore Perry could have leveled Tokyo with his guns, but he didn't.)
>
>That's silly! The Japanese were not the Chinese Imperial Navy. He couldn't
>have gotten close. And even if he had, it would be like trying level London
>with three wooden men-of-war  while fighting off 100,000 riflemen and tons of
>obsolete but functional artillery.

***{Japanese weaponry was primitive by comparison to that employed by
Commodore Perry's "black ships." He could have stood offshore, out of range
of the Japanese weaponry, and leveled the coastal portion of the city.
There would have been nothing the Japanese could have done about it.
--Mitchell Jones}***

The British Navy blew up a small castle in
>Satsuma but it was nothing like Edo. (Given their national personalities, it
>is no surprise that this incident led to a strong, long-lasting bond of
>friendship between the British Navy and the Satsuma clans.)
>
>
>     The "uproar," in my view, was among the ruling elite over the impact
>     that opening up to the west would have, and for a very long time the
>     dominant faction was the one urging isolation.
>
>I don't think so! The elite were not going around chopping up foreigners -- it
>was the masterless samurai (ronin) and rabble rousers.

***{The episodes to which you refer occurred *after* trade was opened with
the West, via the Kanagawa treaty of 1854, not before. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I wrote, "They were debating how to deal with Western incursions. They feared
>something like the Opium Wars . . ." Jones responds:
>
>     History generally puts a favorable spin on the policies of a nation's
>     rulers, if their rule is not interrupted by radical opposition before
>     the history is written.
>
>Well, um . . . maybe, but these people *were* overthrown by radical opposition
>because of the Western incursions, so I am not sure what this statement is
>about.

***{By "radical," I meant "fundamental"--which means: I was referring to a
takeover by a group that was actually committed to the good of the people,
rather than paying lip service to it while enriching themselves. As long as
the prior group of bloodsuckers is merely thrown out by a new group bent on
essentially the same thing, no fundamental changes occurs, and there will
be no incisive commentary by historians concerning the true motivations of
the ruling elite, because such commentary will not be tolerated. Such was
the case here. Indeed, the truth is that Japan has never been ruled by a
group committed to the best interests of the Japanese people, and as a
consequence mainstream Japanese historians have never focused on the true
motivations of the Japanese ruling elite. That state of affairs is hardly
surprising, and in no way undercuts my statement that the policy of
seclusion prior to 1853 was motivated by a fear that contact with
Westerners would destabilize the power of the then-ruling elite. In fact,
as you admitted, that is precisely what happened. Frankly, the net effect
of your comments is to leave me scratching my head: you seem to be arguing,
but I am finding it exceedingly difficult to figure out exactly what you
are arguing about. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>     Bottom line: it is not reasonable to expect Japanese history to paint
>     the shoguns as being motivated by a selfish fear that their power would
>     be destabilized by western contact. That simply isn't the way "history"
>     gets written.
>
>But that *is* the way history is written! And that's the way it happened. They
>were destabilized and tossed out within ten years. I do not understand this
>comment.

***{We seem to be talking past one another. My position is that Japan's
policy of seclusion prior to 1853 was motivated by the ruling elite's
selfish fear that their power would be destabilized by Western contact, not
by their selfless concern for the best interests of their people. They
attempted to keep their people ignorant about the West because they feared
the destabilizing effects of contact with Westerners. You seem to disagree
with this and, in support of that disagreement, you said:

"They feared something like the Opium Wars (1839-42, 1856-60). That is what
they told Heusken and other sympathetic observers. Quoting Encyclopedia
Britannica: "The Japanese, well aware of the implications of foreign
penetration through observing what was happening to China, tried to limit
Western trade to two ports. In 1858, however, Japan agreed to a full
commercial treaty with the United States . . ."

But, of course, the "Opium Wars" were fought because China had tolerated
Western traders in her ports, and contact with those traders had permitted
large numbers of Chinese to develop a taste for Western goods, including
opium, and also a taste for Western ideas about property rights and free
trade. Result: a burgeoning market developed, in which Western traders
earned large profits by selling a wide range of goods, including Turkish
and Indian opium, in China. When China tried to clamp down on this trade,
many of her own people resisted by smuggling and black market activity, and
by open calls for British intervention. The result was a war with Britain,
which China lost, after which British troops occupied a number of ports
along the coast of China. This war was called the Opium War, but was in
fact fought to secure the right of free trade in Chinese ports.

How might the Chinese authorities have prevented such an outcome? Simple:
if contact with Westerners had not been permitted, (a) the Chinese would
not have developed a taste for Western goods, including opium, and (b) they
would not have come under the influence of the thoroughly Western idea that
their government should not interfere with their property rights, including
the right to trade as they saw fit. In short, if the Chinese people had
been kept ignorant of the West, the stage for eventual conflict would not
have been set, and that result would have been avoided. Bottom line: this
example seems to support my thesis, not yours, and so I remain confused
about what you are trying to say here.

--Mitchell Jones}***

I think Jones needs a refresher course in 19th century Japanese
>history.

***{You are the one who gets his Japanese history from the Enclycopedia
Britannica, not I. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

Anyway this is highly off topic, so I'll drop my end of the
>conversation.

***{I don't think it is off topic. It is a very useful parallel to the
present discussion of the possibility of alien contact. In my view, an
interstellar civilization, if it exists, is very likely to be based on the
principles of property rights and free trade, and world governments will be
motivated to prevent such contact for reasons very similar to those which
motivated the shoguns to maintain their policy of seclusion from the West.
The fact of the matter is that, despite some lip service to the notion of
property rights and free trade, there is not a nation on Earth that does
not impose myriad rules, regulations, laws, and taxes which violate both
property rights and freedom of trade. Result: if Earth opens up trade with
an interstellar civilization, the subsequent course of events may closely
parallel the sequence of events in the Far East between 1830 and 1870. It
is an intriguing possibility that casts a lot of light on the topic being
discussed, and hence is thoroughly on topic for that reason alone.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 03:12:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA05891;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:11:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:11:09 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981110111826.00e637c0 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:18:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Alien signals as noise [ON TOPIC]
Resent-Message-ID: <"w3uCY3.0.uR1.Cz1Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24372
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 10:44 PM 11/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyway, these aliens remind me of CETI and cold fusion
>scientists like Swartz who want to people to know yet not know about their
>work. They want to be secret and famous; they want people to buy their
>machines but never use them or look at them.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

>Maybe the aliens are masters at psychology for not *quite* showing themselves,
>and not *quite* convincing us -- just skirting the edge! -- when they could
>convince the entire world in five minutes.

If you were from an advanced world, would you want to get to know the
average Earthling? If they are trying to help us, it's probably out of pity.
That means not too much effort.

>More and more, they remind me of the CF scientists, who could be the
>richest and most famous scientists on earth, with a $100 million each, and yet
>who are mired in poverty and who spend their time kvetching, moaning, pissing
>off investors, and blaming other people for their own self-imposed troubles.

Could you be more specific about this?

Creativity is a process of seeking truths. How can you expect creativity to
flourish in a society that flip flops on the idea of truth at the slightest
whim?

I'm having trouble dealing with the evidence of difficult times ahead. I
feel like I should be working on solving the problem and/or moving to the
center of the continent. Then again, who would want to be around if it does
happen?

If you try to put innovative creativity on an 8 hour per day, 40 hour per
week clock, you invariably end up throwing money at the problem.

If I had a stress free environment, all the books I find interesting,
freedom to specify my own 'Archimedian Bath' methods, and resources to build
stuff, I feel very confident that I could come up with good stuff. Any
inventor could succeed under these circumstances. But, how often do these
circumstances occur in this society?

On top of all of this, a certain most respected professor has shown us a
superior path. Yet, there is no support from our society. We are in trouble
on a planetary scale. We've had the answer for over 50 years. We've crushed
that answer for over 50 years. And, now we piss and moan about how things
are. This is not the fault of the inventor.


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 03:17:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA07111;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:17:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:17:11 -0800
Message-ID: <009301be0c9b$33a88960$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Magnetron-Like Liquid Vortex Generator?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:13:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"wFNhu.0.1l1.s22Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24373
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A serrated or toothed rotor moving past ported holes in a stator running the
length of the rotor might create vortices in the holes.

This would act somewhat like a large roller running against a small roller,
thus creating
a rotation ratio based on the diameter ratio.

Thus a 2 inch diameter rotor turning at 400 revolutions/second would have a
peripheral velocity of about 210 ft/sec, whereas the fluid vortex in a 1/8
inch diameter hole although at the same velocity could rotate at up to
2/0.125 *400 equal 6400 revolutions/sec.

This should effect centrifugal concentration of
Deuterons and with a few free electrons do the CF O/U thing like the Griggs
Pump.

If nothing else,it might make a good siren.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 03:37:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA11306;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:36:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:36:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981110114409.00e77174 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, 10 Nov 1998 06:44:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Magnetron-Like Liquid Vortex Generator?
Resent-Message-ID: <"MPJgS3.0.Wm2.DL2Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24374
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 04:13 AM 11/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>A serrated or toothed rotor moving past ported holes in a stator running the
>length of the rotor might create vortices in the holes.
>
>This would act somewhat like a large roller running against a small roller,
>thus creating
>a rotation ratio based on the diameter ratio.
>
>Thus a 2 inch diameter rotor turning at 400 revolutions/second would have a
>peripheral velocity of about 210 ft/sec, whereas the fluid vortex in a 1/8
>inch diameter hole although at the same velocity could rotate at up to
>2/0.125 *400 equal 6400 revolutions/sec.
>
>This should effect centrifugal concentration of
>Deuterons and with a few free electrons do the CF O/U thing like the Griggs
>Pump.

You are recreating Victor Schauberger ideas! I suggest that you get 'Living
Energies' by Callum Coats. Good logic Frederick!


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 05:11:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA25782;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:10:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:10:10 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26de356034f [208.228.222.172]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:16:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Speed" of light?  [was: Re: Ordering the CRC Handbook- speed of light.]
Resent-Message-ID: <"w1A9Z.0.mI6.ni3Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24375
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:01 PM 11/9/98, UNIR2B1 aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 98-11-09 12:10:20 EST, you write:
>
>To thouroughly admit my ignorance:  How could the speed of light ever
>accurately be measured, if:
>
>...the speed of light is considered a constant, and unrelated to the speed of
>the emitting source, and
>
>...speed is a funcntion of time over distance, and distance involves moving
>objects
>

I would suggest obtaining most any introductory physics book or good
encyclopedia and reading about the Michelson-Morely experiment.  It will
give a much more full answer to your question.  An interferometer, made up
entirely of rigid material, is used to send light in 2 perpendicular
directions simultaneously.  The returning beams interfere with each other,
so that a slight delay on one path over the other is measurable.  The
apparatus is mounted in such a way that it can be rotated.  The rotation of
the earth provides rotation in an addtional axis.  To an extreme degree of
experimental accuracy, light travels in every direction at the same speed.
Once this is established, it is relatively easy to make measurements over
long distances between moving objects using light travel times.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 05:39:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA00695;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:38:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:38:24 -0800
Message-Id: <199811101336.IAA17393 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 98 09:35:14 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"P5pDX1.0.nA.G74Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24376
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>The machine is installing in a corner of a steel building which houses a
>machine shop and a large (2 meter tall) auto parts fabrication machine.

And the large bay  doors are left open - at least when we were there last 
spring.

Gene Mallove

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 09:05:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03018;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:04:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:04:04 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:01:21 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811101203_MC2-5FBF-243C compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"tofmm.0.3l.387Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24377
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Michael Schaffer writes:

     I am sure that you know that both velocity and temperature can vary over
     the cross section of the air flow in the duct. The velocity is always
     smallest near the walls, yet most of the cross section is close to the
     walls.

Yes, it works like a river of water. The water at the edge does not move. We
have observed this with the wind also. The wind tunnel has a one foot square
mouth. We measure at nine points spaced equidistant three inches apart (a
three by three array). Ralph Pope's anemometer automatically measure several
points simultaneously. Our anemometer has a built-in thermometer and we also
measure temperature at nine points. I will post all readings for all points. I
intend to measure twice: once when the fan is running and machine is off with
room temperature air, and again when the machine is running and producing hot
air. If I have time I will repeat entire procedure in a second two-hour run.
After I move the impeller to a new point, I believe it takes about one minute
to stabilize at one reading. So, my plan is to move the impeller and wait one
minute. While I am waiting, I will read the amps and volts of input power and
temperature. Then I will make six readings of the anemometer 15 seconds apart,
then move the impeller.


     Believe me, because I know from experience, it is really easy to get a
     hot (or cool) stream someplace in a short duct.

Yes, that may also be a problem. I believe the duct is two meters long. I will
measure it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 09:06:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03684;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:05:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:05:31 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:02:05 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [WAY OFF TOPIC] Japanese history
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811101204_MC2-5FC5-FDF0 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"O0sED1.0.Ov.Q97Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24378
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I said I wouldn't respond to this thread, but I can't resist. Mitchell Jones
writes:

     How to approach a species that is inferior, yet intelligent, is not as
     simple a problem as you think, providing there is a concern to avoid
     unnecessary loss of life.

Oh, it isn't that hard. I have done it with ground hogs, babies, and other
critters. My wife once picked up a ground hog in her straw hat without getting
bitten, which is a remarkable accomplishment -- although not exactly
intelligent.


     Japanese weaponry was primitive by comparison to that employed by
     Commodore Perry's "black ships." He could have stood offshore, out of
     range of the Japanese weaponry, and leveled the coastal portion of the
     city. There would have been nothing the Japanese could have done about
     it.

The coastal portion of the city went on for miles! The entire U.S. fleet could
not have leveled it. The Japanese artillery was 100 years out of date but it
could have stopped a handful of ships, albeit at great cost to the defenders.


     The episodes to which you refer occurred *after* trade was opened with
     the West, via the Kanagawa treaty of 1854, not before.

Before, during, and after. Heusken was killed during the negotiations.
Atrocities against foreigners were one of the reasons the Perry expedition was
dispatched.


     You are the one who gets his Japanese history from the Encyclopedia
     Britannica, not I. :-)

Actually, I get it from original sources in both languages, especially
Heusken's diary. The Encyclopedia Britannica CD is conveniently at hand, and
it is more authoritative than me.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 09:58:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23918;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:55:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:55:17 -0800
Message-ID: <36488625.57EF ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:29:57 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
References: <3.0.1.32.19981110160226.00ac33c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ad7UR1.0.ar5.4u7Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24379
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Winterflood wrote:
> 
> At 21:20 9/11/98 -0600, Craig Haynie wrote:
> >The question I have, is how much work would it be to remove all
> >doubt that the source of the radio emission is moving against
> >the stellar background? If you can determine that the source
> >of the emission is, indeed, moving against the stellar background,
> >then this case will be closed.

I reviewed the previous material regarding the emission reported as
"interference"
by Dr. Norris, and he reported a phase change indicating a movement of
the source at about 2 degrees per hour. This would translate I suppose
to a period of about 720 hours, roughly the same as the moon's orbital
period. 

Does anyone know where the moon was at the time of Dr. Norris's
intercept? If the emission was not from the moon itself, the only stable
orbit out at that distance would be the L5 points.

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 09:59:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24194;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:56:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:56:20 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110115516.0069e7fc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:55:16 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
In-Reply-To: <19981110043517.8533.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PXocp2.0.pv5.2v7Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24380
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 20:35 11/9/98 -0800, you wrote:

>Thus, if there is a 1" thick slow "dead" layer hugging
>the walls, it occupies 44 sq. in or 30% of the total cross section.
>That's already a "COP" of 1.3. if it's not taken into account.

Jed, this points warrants emphasis.  I can just imagine myself moving the
anemometer around in the duct and mentally averaging the readings near the
center WITHOUT WEIGHTING THEM PROPERLY according to the area of duct at
each location.

It will not suffice to make n readings across the width of the duct and
then compute the simple average.  You must weight the readings according to
the flow area at each location.  You might as well not measure in the
center of the duct, there's zero area right there.




Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 10:07:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28453;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:06:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:06:14 -0800
Message-Id: <199811101804.NAA17324 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:07:29 -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: <"FdT5j1.0.Ty6.L28Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24381
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael,

Thanks for your input.  

Thermocouple performance was checked by binding them close to each other
and immersing them in water.  A recording was started after they were
allowed to settle to quiescence.  The water was gradually heated and cooled
through the range of temperatures (and more) expected to be used during the
experiment).  The thermocouple readings stayed quite close, except for one,
which was used for recording rotor case temperature (accuracy not
critical).

The 6 total thermocouples allowed reading of 4 delta temperatures by having
four TC's inserted into the airstream of the duct in different locations. 
Three of them were 12" from the blower, one of them was 30".  The three
that were 12" out were approximately equally spaced across the width of the
duct and were at 3 depths.  The blower (squirrel-cage type) produces most
air flow in the upper half or third of the duct.  Consequently, the three
thermocouples near the very turbulent outlet of the blower were placed so
as to be in the high velocity air at depths of 3.5", 0.5" and 1.5".  The
fourth thermocouple at 30" from the blower was at a depth of 7".

The three Joule heaters are of the type used in HVAC installations, finned
stainless steel for mounting in metal duct.  They are mounted adjacent to
the rotor motor and left in place during runs that use the rotor, so the
airflow would not be different between calibration and testing.  These
heaters apparently provide a profile of heat that does not match, but comes
close to that of the heat coming off the rotor motor.  They are evenly
spaced vertically and are of a length that fills 12" of the width of the
unit, so the heat is quite evenly distributed.  Of course, all the air is
drawn through the radiator in calibration or normal operation.

The purpose of Joule calibration is not to get absolute results, but to
check the HVAC formula that had been used.  Results were found to coincide
with the equation quite well.  Also, by extrapolating the Joule calibration
line a little further out than the heater output could provide, it was
seen that the many points for the normal operation on the delta-temp vs.
power graph lined up well with the calibration (where rotor motor voltage
was
varied over a 180 - 210Vac range), indicating conventional expectation
results.

A typical CFM mean computed from 9 readings taken on a 3 x 3 grid equally
spaced in the duct opening for a recently installed blower motor was 1205,
with a
standard deviation of 103.3.  The duct is 10' long and has a 12" x 12"
cross-section.  Air flow velocity is measured at the end of the duct, away
from the blower.  The main advantage of using the Joule heater
is that it eliminates the need to rely on this imprecise value because the
blower is moving the air the same way during calibration or normal
operation.

I can provide graphics to anyone who wants them, but will not post to
Vortex due to file size.


Ed Wall

NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 10:18:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30862;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:11:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:11:19 -0800
Message-ID: <364889D9.6A5E ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:45:46 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
References: <3.0.1.32.19981110160226.00ac33c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <36488625.57EF@ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GBnlI2.0.4Y7.678Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24382
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jim Ostrowski wrote:
> 
> John Winterflood wrote:
> >
> > At 21:20 9/11/98 -0600, Craig Haynie wrote:
> > >The question I have, is how much work would it be to remove all
> > >doubt that the source of the radio emission is moving against
> > >the stellar background? If you can determine that the source
> > >of the emission is, indeed, moving against the stellar background,
> > >then this case will be closed.
> 
> I reviewed the previous material regarding the emission reported as
> "interference"
> by Dr. Norris, and he reported a phase change indicating a movement of
> the source at about 2 degrees per hour. This would translate I suppose
> to a period of about 720 hours, roughly the same as the moon's orbital
> period.

OOPS! Math check indicates I inverted something here -make that 180
hours, making this source much closer than the moon.

Still wondering about the 1.4 ghz  band for  this source and the narrow 
signal width.   

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 10:58:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14249;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:54:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:54:57 -0800
Message-ID: <36489439.33AE ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:30:01 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: SETI oddity of the day
References: <36488280.71B1 ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7DE42B561713"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jy47U3.0.ZU3.0m8Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24383
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.

--------------7DE42B561713
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vo;
 
 The site at:
 
 http://www.lunaranomalies.com/set.htm
 
  depicts the SET-I software logo (gif also attached here) showing the
 earth exchanging signals with what appears to be a UFO . The commentary
 at the site indicates this software would be used by the SETI league to
 track incoming ET space probes.
 
 This appears to be a change in emphasis on the part of the SETI effort
 from looking for signals from stars to looking for UFOs.
 
 Jim Ostrowski

--------------7DE42B561713
Content-Type: image/gif; name="SETI.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SETI.GIF"
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--------------7DE42B561713--



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 11:06:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17531;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:01:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:01:19 -0800
From: JNaudin509 aol.com
Message-ID: <dd8893ce.36488c81 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:57:05 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Cc: 101722.2050 compuserve.com, jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr,
        biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: 3 unsuccessful CF experiments....
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 127
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wt7nv.0.jH4.zr8Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24384
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Vo,

Today, I have updated my web site with the Cold Fusion experiments report from
Pierre Clauzon :

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
"  RESEARCH   OF  ANOMALOUS  EXCESS  HEAT IN  " COLD  FUSION " TYPE
EXPERIMENTS "

		P.P.Clauzon , J.F.Fauvarque , F.Joubert  
		Laboratoire d'Electrochimie Industrielle du CNAM (Paris)

ABSTRACT :  This paper gives a brief description of three types of "cold
fusion" experiments done in our laboratory from January 1996 to July 1998:

	1- "Pons and Fleishmann" type experiments ( P&F) at boiling temperature,
	2- "Patterson " type experiment, in cooperation with CEN Grenoble, in
	particular for beads supply,
	3- A new type of glow discharge experiment, which allows us to get protons
	under about 400 volts potential.

		Without prejudging the reality of the "cold fusion" phenomenon, we must say
that we have neither seen any anomalous excess heat nor any kind of nuclear
transmutations.

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

You will find the full report with diagrams, colors pictures and all the
details in my web site at :
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/256/pclauzon/index.htm

All comments must be sent to Pierre Clauzon ( 101722.2050 compuserve.com )

Best Regards,

Jean-Louis Naudin (France)
Email: jnaudin509 aol.com
Main web site: http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 11:15:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17650;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:01:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:01:34 -0800
Message-ID: <36488DEA.48C6 skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:03:06 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What Are Magnetic Nanoparticles? (http://www-sims.nist.gov/SigmaXi/Posters98/ab
References: <008501be0bcb$efab4c40$588f85ce default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lXVBh.0.iJ4.Es8Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24385
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> Lots of nanoparticle literature on the web, Ed.
> http://www-sims.nist.gov/SigmaXi/Posters98/abs/scott/index.htm

Interesting. Nanometer size particles of carbon coated
FeCo oxides are created with an acetylene injected RF
plasma torch. The website appears to be directed toward
development of commercial applications. Little is said
about the physics of the particles, except that they 
"often display unusual properties".

Due to the very large surface to volume ratio, it can
be suggested that some of the unusual properties may
result because these nano-particles contain only
a single magnetic domain -- no Bloch walls. 

One unusual property of magnetic nano-particles may be that 
they are capable of acquiring a monopolar magnetic charge. 
A reasonably conclusive experiment of this effect was first 
conducted by Ehrenhaft in the 1930s. The experiment was repeated 
by Mikhailov in the 1990s. See:

  "Six Experiments With Magnetic Charge", V.F. Mikhailov,
   Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and
   Applications, Terrence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes,
   Editors, World Scientific Publishing, 1995, pp 593-635.
   ISBN 981-02-2095-2 

Ehrenhaft and Mikahailov produced an aerosol of microscopic
iron particles by electrospark sputtering. When illuminated
with a light beam, these particles were found to exhibit
motion in a magnetic field which is consistent with the 
induction of a monopolar magnetic charge. 

But, why would this occur only when the particles are 
illuminated with a beam of light? Perhaps relatedly, M.W. Evans 
and others, have demonstrated in theory that circularly 
polarized light must contain a longitudinal phase-free 
magnetic field component along with the conventional 
transverse field components. 

It is in my opinion unfortunate that Evans has derived the 
necessary existence of the longitudinal field components based 
on analysis of the planar EM wave -- which should be more 
correctly known as the INFINITE planar wave. The infinite 
planar wave is a myth. A clearly non-physical entity. Using 
spinor matrices, and other approaches, and beginning with a 
non-physical infinite wave, Evans derives a clearly non-physical 
result. An infinite phase-free longitudinal magnetic field, 
Bz, along with an infinite purely imaginary phase-free longitudinal 
electric field, iEz. 

It is fairly easy to see that a photon, or any other practically 
generated (non-infinite) EM wave must contain longitudinal field 
components along with the conventional transverse field components. 
Unless the EM wave is infinite in the transverse directions, it is 
impossible to satisfy Maxwell's source free divergence equations, 
without the existence of longitudinal field components. 
Furthermore, both the longitudinal electric field and the 
longitudinal magnetic field must be real (non-imaginary), and 
although imhomogeneous relative to the wave number of the transverse 
fields, the longitudinal fields can not be spatially phase-free. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 11:29:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA29223;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:27:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:27:40 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:25:12 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811101427_MC2-5FC5-D7DF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"MKA9G.0.X87.iE9Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24386
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little writes:

     Jed, this points warrants emphasis.  I can just imagine myself moving
     the anemometer around in the duct and mentally averaging the readings
     near the center WITHOUT WEIGHTING THEM PROPERLY according to the area of
     duct at each location.

     It will not suffice to make n readings across the width of the duct and
     then compute the simple average.

With all due respect, I cannot imagine myself doing that! I learned to do
experiments as a kid long before there were computers; I know how to avoid
such pitfalls. I never mentally average anything. I take readings at fixed
intervals (15 seconds in this case), record all, and process later. On the
other hand, I do not know how to do mathematics, so I would simply take lowest
value from all readings.


     You must weight the readings according to the flow area at each
     location.

As I said, I think it would be more conservative to take the lowest reading,
or the average of the lowest 20 readings.


     You might as well not measure in the center of the duct, there's zero
     area right there.

I do not think so. We did not see that last time. I'll measure more carefully
this time.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 12:02:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10576;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:00:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:00:54 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36487DFF.7A55 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:55:11 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Data from Pope / testing anemometer
References: <199811081629_MC2-5F8A-3BB compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"G-d1f2.0.4b2.rj9Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24387
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 10, 1998

Jed Rothwell wrote in part:
 
> Here is the data from Ralph Pope from a test on 11/6/98, duration 1 hour 15
> minutes:
> Input powe<snip>: <snip> 11,263 BTU/hour 
> Output power: <snip> 22,680 BTU/hour output.

Pardon my ignorance. There has been discussion on duct design and
mesurements. Why do you have to have duct works in the first place? I
would think free flow output measurements from the fan blown heat
condenser output gives better data than impeding air flow with duct work
just to channel air flow. In part, Jed's sensitivity observations on
tests with an open fan and anemometer would seem to indicate the
desirability of no duct work on the Kinetic Furnace output measurements.
Doing the tests outside might be better yet than in a confined space.
And are the existing ducts of the same lengths?

-AK-


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 12:28:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20452;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:26:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:26:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199811102025.OAA16078 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:24:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: The Pitfalls of Alien Contact
Resent-Message-ID: <"4jRgL.0.J_4.V5AIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24388
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>I said I wouldn't respond to this thread, but I can't resist. Mitchell Jones
>writes:
>
>     How to approach a species that is inferior, yet intelligent, is not as
>     simple a problem as you think, providing there is a concern to avoid
>     unnecessary loss of life.
>
>Oh, it isn't that hard. I have done it with ground hogs, babies, and other
>critters. My wife once picked up a ground hog in her straw hat without getting
>bitten, which is a remarkable accomplishment -- although not exactly
>intelligent.

***{While there is value in humor, there is also value in focusing on the
issue. There is no useful parallel between approaching "ground hogs,
babies, and other critters" and approaching the adult population of an
urbanized human civilization. Adult humans do not roll up in balls or cry
when they perceive a mortal threat: they head for the exits. Further, when
people perceive the opportunity to safely observe an extraordinary event,
they tend to head *toward* the location of the event. The result, when they
do so en masse, is going to be lots of mangled bodies. As evidence I cite
the results at rock concerts, soccer games, and other events where, for
various reasons, everyone has headed rapidly in the same direction at the
same time. What this means is that any sighting of a "flying saucer" or
other clearly alien spacecraft has to be from a great distance, or be
brief, or at night, or in a rural setting, to avoid a disastrous outcome.
If, for example, a single "flying saucer" were, as per your suggestion, to
cruise into New York harbor during the day and remain there for a lengthy
period of time, the word would quickly spread through the city, and 10
million New Yorkers would simultaneously head for the harbor. The result
would *not* be amusing. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     Japanese weaponry was primitive by comparison to that employed by
>     Commodore Perry's "black ships." He could have stood offshore, out of
>     range of the Japanese weaponry, and leveled the coastal portion of the
>     city. There would have been nothing the Japanese could have done about
>     it.
>
>The coastal portion of the city went on for miles! The entire U.S. fleet could
>not have leveled it. The Japanese artillery was 100 years out of date but it
>could have stopped a handful of ships, albeit at great cost to the defenders.

***{Once such a bombardment began, fires would have quickly sprung up, and
firefighters would have been unable to approach them due to the
bombardment. Result: they would have quickly gotten out of control, and
would have leveled the entire city. Japanese artillery would have been
useless due to range limitations. They would have been utterly helpless--as
helpless as we would be if visited by a fleet of alien spacecraft with
hostile intent. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     The episodes to which you refer occurred *after* trade was opened with
>     the West, via the Kanagawa treaty of 1854, not before.
>
>Before, during, and after. Heusken was killed during the negotiations.
>Atrocities against foreigners were one of the reasons the Perry expedition was
>dispatched.

***{This is utterly wrong. Practically speaking, the West had no knowledge
of foreigners in Japan prior to the Kanagawa treaty, because foreigners
were officially prohibited from being there, and there were no Western
diplomatic outposts in the country to keep track of their activities and
the way they were treated. The Perry expedition was dispatched to open up
trade with Japan, not in response to an occasional atrocity against a
foreigner who was there illegally and about whose existence and death the
U.S. authorities knew nothing. It was not until trade opened up and
foreigners were permitted legal entry and access to U.S. consular
authorities, that the atrocities, for practical purposes, began. The
Kanagawa treaty of 1854, by permitting an influx of foreigners, gave rise
to the resentments that led to the atrocities; and the presence of
foreigners and the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers provided
the necessary means for transmitting knowledge of the atrocities to Western
governments. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>     You are the one who gets his Japanese history from the Encyclopedia
>     Britannica, not I. :-)
>
>Actually, I get it from original sources in both languages, especially
>Heusken's diary. The Encyclopedia Britannica CD is conveniently at hand, and
>it is more authoritative than me.
>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:04:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06438;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:59 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b26e58a408d4 [208.228.222.210]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:10:22 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
Resent-Message-ID: <"JG_j62.0.Sa1._eAIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24392
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:45 AM 11/10/98, Jim Ostrowski wrote:
>Jim Ostrowski wrote:
>>
>> John Winterflood wrote:
>> >
>> > At 21:20 9/11/98 -0600, Craig Haynie wrote:
>> > >The question I have, is how much work would it be to remove all
>> > >doubt that the source of the radio emission is moving against
>> > >the stellar background? If you can determine that the source
>> > >of the emission is, indeed, moving against the stellar background,
>> > >then this case will be closed.
>>
>> I reviewed the previous material regarding the emission reported as
>> "interference"
>> by Dr. Norris, and he reported a phase change indicating a movement of
>> the source at about 2 degrees per hour. This would translate I suppose
>> to a period of about 720 hours, roughly the same as the moon's orbital
>> period.
>
>OOPS! Math check indicates I inverted something here -make that 180
>hours, making this source much closer than the moon.
>
>Still wondering about the 1.4 ghz  band for  this source and the narrow
>signal width.
>
>Jim Ostrowski



The angular velocity indicated by the 1 cycle/minute phase shift
oscillation of the EQ Peg source could be due to motion against the
background stars, motion due to the 24 hour rotation of off target signal
sources, or a combination.  The provided formula to determine the amount
the target is off center indicates that the sources is more than 10 degrees
off center.  Since 10 degrees is way out of the field of view of the
antenna, it appears to me certain that there is motion of the signal source
relative to the background stars.

The phase shift data could be possibly analysed to determine that rate, but
if it were done, so what?  Near objects are considered "interference" or
non-hits.  No one is looking for alien space probes or shuttles.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:07:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06288;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:51 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26e555040d9 [208.228.222.210]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:10:17 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: SETI oddity of the day
Resent-Message-ID: <"tgzpk2.0.AY1.teAIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24391
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:30 AM 11/10/98, Jim Ostrowski wrote:
>Vo;
>
> The site at:
>
> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/set.htm
>
>  depicts the SET-I software logo (gif also attached here) showing the
> earth exchanging signals with what appears to be a UFO . The commentary
> at the site indicates this software would be used by the SETI league to
> track incoming ET space probes.
>
> This appears to be a change in emphasis on the part of the SETI effort
> from looking for signals from stars to looking for UFOs.
[snip]

This is untrue as far as I can find at the seti home project web sites, e.g.:

<http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/analysis.html>

which shows a graphic of the analysis technique and this description:

"Each chunk of data delivered to a home or business computer consists of
0.25MB organized as 50 seconds x 20KHz x 2-bits of voltage data. Within
this 20KHz 400,000 different frequency and bandwidth combinations are
examined. (The bandwidths vary from 0.1Hz to 1.5KHz in 14 binary steps. At
the finest bandwidth of 0.1Hz, all 200,000 frequencies in the 20Khz range
are examined.)

At least 10 different "chirp"s or frequency drift rates will be examined.
This will cover doppler shifts caused by any of the expected orbital speeds
(due to the rotation of a planet, a solar system, or an entire galaxy.)

Finally, signals that show a strong power at some particular combination of
frequency, bandwidth and chirp are subjected to a test for terrestrial
interference. Only if the power rises and then falls over a 12 second
period (the time it takes the telescope to pass a spot in the sky) can the
signal be tentatively considered extra-terrestrial in nature."

The logo artwork is misleading?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:09:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05843;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:03:10 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981110160054.00899e20 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:00:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Superconducting Antenna
In-Reply-To: <199811102025.OAA16084 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"yChjA.0.DR1.EeAIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24390
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:24 PM 11/10/98 -0600, you wrote:
 Of course, it may be a
>hoax. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***
 
Much enjoyed. Thanks!

Colin.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:21:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14199;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:18:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:18:28 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b26e5efe86ea [208.228.222.210]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:24:54 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Superconducting Antenna
Resent-Message-ID: <"JgDJw3.0.nT3.asAIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24393
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:24 PM 11/10/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, it may be a
>hoax. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
>Best 73, Joe Speroni, AH0A/7J1AAA
>Ex-Technical Adviser - TIARA
>1 April 1997

The above publication date says it all.  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:24:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15775;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:23:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:23:21 -0800
Message-ID: <012701be0cef$e0020b60$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Synthesis, Properties And Applications Of Graphite Nanofibers (http://www.itri.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:19:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0121_01BE0CB5.2D303320"
Resent-Message-ID: <"257G71.0.Gs3.8xAIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24394
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_0121_01BE0CB5.2D303320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hydrogen storage in graphite nanofibers (up to 30 liters/gram at room
temperature).

http://www.itri.loyola.edu/nano/us_r_n_d/09_03.htm



------=_NextPart_000_0121_01BE0CB5.2D303320
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Synthesis, Properties And Applications Of Graphite Nanofibers.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Synthesis, Properties And Applications Of Graphite Nanofibers.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.itri.loyola.edu/nano/us_r_n_d/09_03.htm
Modified=80627730EF0CBE0143

------=_NextPart_000_0121_01BE0CB5.2D303320--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 13:28:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20501;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:26:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:26:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199811102025.OAA16084 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:24:17 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Superconducting Antenna
Resent-Message-ID: <"gbM2b2.0.F05.a5AIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24389
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{I pulled the following article off of one of the SETI discussion
groups. It seems highly relevant here, due to the claimed anomalous
performance of the gadget which is being discussed. Of course, it may be a
hoax. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

From: willcox voicenet.com
X-Sender: willcox popmail.voicenet.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:43:21 +0500
To: seti sni.net
Subject: SETI "The Antenna" ;-)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-seti lists.sni.net
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: 8a57a4dc0c08382bd59fe9a75fef5b45

Definately off-topic ;-)
Apologies if this is too long.

"The Antenna"

Dear Sandy, W7BX

Greetings from Tokyo and all the members of TIARA (Tokyo International
Amateur Radio Association). I know I promised
you a series of articles on Japanese amateur radio, but there is something
so exciting I just have to take a break and tell
you about it.

It all started with the work that Ed Coan (AH7L/7J1AAE) did on antenna
pattern plotting using his personal computer and
the A-to-D converter in his FT-1000. The circular, and even backward
antenna patterns of some of our local TIARA club
members brought home the point that what a good station needs is a good
antenna. Ed's antenna looks great and the
results verify it. He works regular schedules into Colorado and Maine, just
like sunspots don't mean anything. My
mini-beam just could not compare.

Well, I got to thinking about what we Tokyo apartment dwellers could do and
realized that space is THE problem. How
do you fit a full-sized beam on a balcony? Loading coils are the answer and
the problem at the same time -- the antenna
radiation resistance drops as reactance is substituted for length. High
current loops develop and the power is dissipated
in the antenna instead of being radiated. If only the antenna didn't
dissipate the power. Hmmm....let's see, P=E2/R; now if
R were 0 then...

>From my work, I have some contacts in research groups over at Tokyo
University. Better yet, I knew a Japanese ham
that is a graduate student there. The thought running through my head was
to build a super-conducting antenna. This
requires cryogenics, i.e. temperatures around minus 279 degrees Centigrade.
I was able get the university folks
interested in the project and we built a 10-meter dipole test silicon
wafer. They put together a lot of serial coils by
"re-work" on the wafer; they were able to connect them so we had a
super-conducting yagi. I took my TS-930 transceiver
down to the lab for the first tests, but before we could test it, actual
measurements showed it was resonant on 3.126
MHz. It seems that the normal equations for inductance don't work with
super-conducting materials -- you need a lot
fewer turns to get the same results compared to room temperature. Many
measurements and trials later, we had a
ten-meter resonant wafer. This time we put a 40-element beam on each wafer
and stacked 4 wafers in the same
assembly. That made a 160-element array on 10-meters in less than a
half-foot cube (15 cm3).

The first test didn't go too well. I connected my TS-930 to the
super-conducting wafer antenna and tuned it for 10
meters. At room temperature, we couldn't hear anything. Using a heat pump,
the lab technicians started lowering the
antenna's temperature toward the super-conducting region. I was really
impressed by how small the equipment is, and
started thinking it might all fit in the shack. Just then, the TS-930 froze
solid, which had a negative effect on its operating
characteristics. This wouldn't be so easy after all; the coax connection
would need some study!

We reworked the wafers to put inductive coupling on them, but I could find
no way to efficiently couple to it from the
conducting array. Fortunately the lab technicians came up with a new
ceramic material that passed RF but not heat.
Probably, something that Kyocera invented just for this use. I sent the
TS-930 to the ham shop in Akihabara and asked
them to touch it up for me. My friend Suzuki-San, JH1WWC (store manager at
the ham shop), asked exactly how the
paint had been peeled off around the coax connector -- lightning maybe? No,
I assured him -- just low temperature
exposure, without saying how low the temperatures were. The project had to
stay secret and besides, Suzuki-San can
repair anything!

Since it looked like it might be a while before the TS-930 would be
repaired, I brought out my TS-940. I had already
placed an order for a Yaesu FT-1000 anyway. After verifying that in the
super-conducting range the antenna was
resonant on 10-meters, we connected the TS-940. The ceramic material worked
and the rig operated well as we began
the cooling cycle. The band seemed dead even with the antenna at -150
degrees C. It took another 10 minutes to get to
the super-conducting range -- then the TS-940 blew up. It seems our antenna
had a bit more gain than the TS-940
front-end could take. Later measurements showed 500 volts coming out of the
coax. A little hard to believe, but then
what do I know about cryogenic LSI antenna technology? The TS-940 was also
returned to Suzuki-San, but this time he
frowned a bit -- the front-end board did look like it had been hit by
lightning. Not to worry, Suzuki-San can repair
anything!

The FT-1000 arrived just in time to be able to continue experiments. We
built a QSK attenuator to protect the receiver.
With the LSI wafer antenna still inside the lab, we decided to try to make
a contact on 10-meters. What a shock when we
got it working! The first thing we heard was a couple of W2's talking
locally on 10 meters and that was with 80 dB of
attenuation. We had the antenna array on a rotatable mount; I moved it
about a half-degree and the W2's disappeared.
What beam width! We tuned them in again, and they were just about to sign
off, so we thought we would try to work
them. The rig was tuned up at 50 watts on a dummy load; we switched in the
wafer antenna and gave N2BA a call. The
noise was unbelievable -- an ionized ray shot out from the antenna and hit
the wall of the building. Before we knocked a
hole in the band, we took a piece out of the lab wall! Ever wonder what an
antenna pattern looks like in three
dimensions? There was a oval hole in the wall of the lab -- about 1-cm high
by 2-cm wide. We cut power quickly. N2BA
came back on frequency a few minutes later and said he was using his
back-up rig; something had taken his main rig off
the air. For some reason, the station he was talking to never came back, so
we decided not to transmit again until we
knew for sure what was going on.

As near as we can tell, the antenna array has 120-dB gain over a dipole,
but with a beamwidth of 0.75 degrees using the
60-dB points. With 50 watts output, the effective radiated power is 55
quadrillion watts at the center of the beam (5.5
with 13 zeroes). As soon as the University realized what we had built, the
entire project was taken away from us and
turned over to the Japanese Self-Defense Force. Amateur radio "tinkering"
has contributed to something, but I am not
exactly sure what. I haven't the slightest idea what was in those wafers or
how to build another set. Do you think
someone may be interested in this idea for Star Wars/SDI?? What I'd give to
use a much smaller set in the next CQ
World Wide Contest!

A few months later, the University contacted all of us and asked just how
close we had been to the antenna when
operating. As best as I can figure, we were in the null behind the array.
>From what has been said so far, it looks like a
secondary use for our antenna may be as a mass sterilizer, but confirmation
will have to await the results of our medical
tests. If our antenna ever hits the market, it looks like remote operation
would be desirable.

As I am writing this, I have been informed that my friend Suzuki-San can't
fix everything after all. He's written off the
TS-930 and TS-940, and I just found out that before the university
terminated the project, they tried one more time with
my FT-1000, but without the 100-dB attenuator to protect the receiver. Its
front-end now matches the 940's and it looks
like it will be a while before I am on the air again.

Best 73, Joe Speroni, AH0A/7J1AAA
Ex-Technical Adviser - TIARA
1 April 1997

This story has been reprinted and edited from the April 1985 issue of the
Tokyo International Amateur Radio
Association's (TIARA) newsletter. Permission is hereby granted to reprint
all or any portion of the material, provided
credit is given to both TIARA NEWS and the author - Joe Speroni,
AH0A/7J1AAA.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 14:04:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27091;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:59:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:59:37 -0800
Message-ID: <015e01be0cf4$f1a616e0$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Nanoparticle Patents
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:56:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"OXDok2.0.Dd6.9TBIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24395
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The U.S. Patent Office gave 134 hits on Nanoparticles, www.uspto.gov ,
preparation and uses.

FJS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 14:10:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29958;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:07:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:07:32 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110170823.007fd560 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:08:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Response to Rothwell's latest attacks on CF workers
In-Reply-To: <199811092246_MC2-5FB1-B87A compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IMK7d2.0._J7.ZaBIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24396
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


 
At 10:44 PM 11/9/98, Jed Rothwell wrote about his knowledge
of aliens:

>Probably none, I suppose, since a large fraction of the population already
>believes they exist. I think it would work out like the opening scenes in
>"Childhood's End." Anyway, these aliens remind me of CETI and cold fusion
>scientists like Swartz who want to people to know yet not know about their
>work. They want to be secret and famous; they want people to buy their
>machines but never use them or look at them. 


   More Rothwell rants, and quite a bit of projection on his part.

Can't speak for CETI, or Jed's purported alien friends, but Jed Rothwell
apparently stuck his carrot up his nose a bit too far this time, because
it has apparently punctured its way into his brain.

  We have published many of our findings appropriately, and continue
these efforts.  These publications, and many of the lectures associated
with them, tell people how to use these systems, demonstrate them, and
indicate how to look for the appropriate effects.  

  Furthermore, most of the other scientists in cold fusion whom I have
met have similarly correctly acted in this responsible fashion; which 
appears to be a "problem" to the parasitic Mr. Rothwell.  
 
Conclusion: Jed's attempt to impersonate an illiterate child blaming
everyone else is probably not appropriate given that Halloween is over.


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


  Jed Rothwell on his purported contacts with aliens:
>More and more, they remind me of the CF scientists, who could be the
>richest and most famous scientists on earth, with a $100 million each, and
yet
>who are mired in poverty and who spend their time kvetching, moaning, pissing
>off investors, and blaming other people for their own self-imposed troubles.


   This is utter nonsense. Science and engineering require slow, methodical
and meticulous work.  In the case of cold fusion, the workers are 
overworked, underpaid, and barely appreciated (and certainly not by 
Rothwell).

  It is ironic that despite the above post, that some of the trouble for CF's 
(undeserved) "Rodney Dangerfield" reputation is from 
Jed-"dont need to calibrate"-Rothwell and his near continuous silly crank
comments - which are not a substitute for hard scientific work
which takes long efforts, numerous experiments, and extreme diligence.

  Furthermore, there is additional irony given that Rothwell's history of 
back-stabbing workers in the cold fusion field (including those who have 
unfortunately left vortex-l because of his libel) has led to some
other of the problems including suboptimal amounts of funding for cf.

  Summary: Rothwell's ad hominems against cold fusion investigators
is wrong and misplaced, but it is something that occurs now with some 
predictability.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 14:21:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03319;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:18:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:18:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3648BE15.529F3E3 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:28:37 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
References: <v01530501b26e58a408d4 [208.228.222.210]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-8jXS.0.np.qkBIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24397
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

I have some critics about the report of Dr, Norris.

1) In general: Why people use too many assumptions while investigating totally unknown phenomena? If you don't know anything about nature of the phenomena that you want to investigate, why filter observations based to assumptions.

2) A narrow band signal was present. The correct thing to do is find the  exact source of the signal (from which satellite coming from) to rule out the ET claim. This is the only way to disproof the ET signal claim.

3) Dr. Norris says "Some interference is seen at about 1451.8 MHz, which is over 1 MHz away from the frequency of the signal observed by
Mr. Dore (1453.075 MHz), and so is probably not related." 
Even there is a 99% possibility for an terrestrial interference, 1% is enough to suspect an ET signal, because there was not yet a possibly to encounter an ET signal. Even one per billion possibility is worth to investigate, if one looking for a ET signal

.

Actually I don't know how often is encountered a narrow band signal form a satellite from a narrow direction and not so moving too fast. I think it is not often. For example radio astronomers are encountering such "interferences" not every observations, m

aybe one percent, maybe less. But if we take account the number of observation performed by all astronomers and for a period, they can say that "interferences" are not uncommon, but actually very low percent arithmetically.

4) The original claims (hoax or not hoax) states the signal is drifting. Why Dr. Norris insist to invalidate the P.Dore claims, by not founding a signal at the exact frequency of the first observation? One answer is Dr. Norris does not believe (or give no

 possibility) that a non Earthbound signal can drift its frequency whatever its source is.

Maybe natural signals never drifts, but obviously this assumption is not valid if one look for a unnatural signal.

What we just need to know is how often a satellite interference in encountered on radio observations. The point is Dr. Norris made only one  observation on EQ Pegasi and encountered a signal just in a freq. range that one should look for.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 15:48:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01348;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:44:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:44:40 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:40:31 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811101843_MC2-5FCD-D714 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"7kmnq3.0.vK.d_CIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24398
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> Believe me, because I know from experience, it is really easy to get a
     hot (or cool) stream someplace in a short duct.

Yes, that may also be a problem. I believe the duct is two meters long. I
will
measure it. <<

Please also look for rotation of the airflow due to the fan if it is
pushing the air thru the duct - unless you have straightening vanes before
the anemometers - even then there is always residual rotation.  I would
also be concerned about the square X-section possibly causing local
streaming.  You could find that there are insufficient measuring points in
your grid.  We always calibrated the duct by a closely spaced traverse with
a pitot-static probe, just to catch any funny flow pattern.

I spent several years developing gas turbine and ram-jet combustion
systems, so I was in a position to measure the effect of goofy air flow,
FWIW.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 15:56:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03805;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:49:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:49:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:38:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, John Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Subject: magneto caloric ...
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981110183650.26435H-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"aXhy_.0.Lx.L4DIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24399
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	Any and all references on magneto caloric ... ie., "magnetically 
driven refridgeration" ... would be appreciated...
	I seem to recall someone posted some information on this....
			Thanks,

				JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 16:22:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA16958;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:20:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:20:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981111002047.0091c87c 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: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 19:20:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: Superconducting Antenna
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jim-U2.0.f84.RXDIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24400
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:24 PM 11/10/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>***{I pulled the following article off of one of the SETI discussion
>groups. It seems highly relevant here, due to the claimed anomalous
>performance of the gadget which is being discussed. Of course, it may be a
>hoax. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

Amateur Radio people are well noted for their April Fool stories.  It was
fun reading.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 16:26:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18325;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:25:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:25:22 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3648D959.71A6C99C css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:24:57 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: World's Most Powerful Pulsed Magnet Dedicated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OlTzt3.0.FU4.obDIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24401
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Aug. 28, 1998 - A multi-ton magnet powered by a billion-watt
generator and capable of creating powerful, pulsed magnetic fields for a longer
period of time than any other in the world was commissioned today in ceremonies
at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
....
The pulsed-field magnet, consisting of nine nested electromagnetic coils wrapped
in steel cylinders, can reach a peak field strength of 60 tesla
....
Part of the magnet's uniqueness is that the shape of the magnetic field pulse
can be tailored specifically to the needs of the experimenter. The field
strength can be held constant at certain specified values, for example, or swept
from zero to maximum strength, or taken through more complicated pulses, such as
a stair-step pattern. 

Full article:
    http://www.newswise.com/articles/MEGAMAG.LAL.html

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 16:40:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24038;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:39:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:39:09 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3648DC8C.23C7C09D css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:38:36 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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: magneto caloric ...
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981110183650.26435H-100000 antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bq0uO3.0.Et5.hoDIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24402
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> Any and all references on magneto caloric ... ie., "magnetically
> driven refridgeration" ... would be appreciated...

Don't have all my notes and clippings handy John, but Scientific American May
1998 had an article.  I know you are not browser friendly so I will email you
the text offline.  For everyone else the URL is:
<http://www.sciam.com/1998/0598issue/0598techbus5.html>


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 20:03:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA28696;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 19:58:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 19:58:30 -0800
Message-ID: <36491285.B1B ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:28:53 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
References: <v01530501b26e58a408d4 [208.228.222.210]> <3648BE15.529F3E3@verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3xNBC.0.E07.bjGIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24403
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi Ucar wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have some critics about the report of Dr, Norris.

(snip of several excellent points)

Radio Astronomy sites typically have a full schedule of observations
requested by 
astrophysicists from universities and goverments all over the world ,
none of them concerned with anything related to the search for ET
signals. In order to devote some time to this ,Dr, Norris probably had
to take it away from something else way more important from the
perspective of these other clients, I'm sure.

This is indeed a rather sad state of affairs, IMHO. Inasmuch as your
comments make a lot of sense, Hamdi , they cut no ice whatsoever in
terms of the realities involved here.

What bothers me more than what Dr. Norris might have neglected to do
because of the time
constraints just described, is the failure of the "SETI League" or Dr.
Shuch , who is an arrogant stuffed shirt (I say that based on persoanl
experience), to follow up on Dr. Norris' observation. Of course , the
SETI league has already decided that any signals
from ET's are going to be wide band , so that immediately ruled out the
prospect of any effort in this case whatsoever.

The idea that ET siganls would have to be wide band in the first place
is a load of crap, promoted by "Nathan Cohen" for what purpose and what
end being a genuine mystery in itself.
 
> What we just need to know is how often a satellite interference in encountered on radio observations. The point is Dr. Norris made only one  observation on EQ Pegasi and encountered a signal just in a freq. range that one should look for.

Absolotely correct, but unfortunately not relevent to government grant
driven Radio Astronomy. 

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 20:39:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10252;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:36:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:36:21 -0800
Message-ID: <36491B47.79A1 ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:06:15 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Message from ATNF - detailed calcs
References: <v01530501b26e58a408d4 [208.228.222.210]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"98eSE1.0.2W2.4HHIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24404
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

(snip)

> The phase shift data could be possibly analysed to determine that rate, but
> if it were done, so what?

So the object could be orbitally plotted, identified, tagged and
catalogued for future reference.

  Near objects are considered "interference" or
> non-hits.  No one is looking for alien space probes or shuttles.

Why should such objects be excluded ?

Horace I am a bit surprised (pleasantly) to see that you are
participating in a thread like this. Thank you for your help. ; ^)

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 21:09:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA19883;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:02:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:02:36 -0800
Message-ID: <36491994.2008 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:59:00 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue:  CF debate 11.10.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KoqhF2.0.bs4.ifHIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24405
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: Takahashi and CF debate 11.9.98
      Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:26:00 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net
[Rich Murray: Wayne Green [design73 aol.com] in his Elemental Energy, #
28, Oct., 1998, has published the first letters in this debate, p.
49-54. I hope he publishes them all, and keeps the dates.  Hideo Kozima
on p. 35-40 discusses the null result on "radioactive remediation" by
Lawrence Forsley, and some claims by R.A. Monti, both from ICCF-7. 
Patterson patent # 5,676,816 is on pages 55-66, issued Oct., 1997,  for
the CETI cell: the table on p. 64 shows for a flow rate of 17.6 ml/min
and input power .029 W, then delta-T is 13.0 degrees C, and output power
is 15.93 W, a yield of 54,965% .  Obviously, its high time for shrewd,
savvy investors to sink some more millions into CETI.]
 
Rich Murray wrote:

> Subject:
>         Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 10.31.98
>   Date:
>         Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:12:47 -0500 (EST)
>   From:
>         "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:
>         rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> >
> > If you will note of figure 8 in my review (Infinite Energy or the copy I
> > sent you), you will see a comparison between the signal and background.
> > The greatest difference between signal and background is at 4.5 MeV with
> > a very minor difference at 7 MeV and a somewhat greater one at 2.45 MeV.
> > Takahashi notes that this difference is only seen when excess energy is
> > being produced. I think you are running out of wiggle room.
> 
> Out of wiggle room?  Far from it!  Let's review just how an NE213
> scintillator
> detects neutrons.  

Let's not.  Rather than get into a discussion of details having little
importance to the problem, I would rather summarize the main points:

1) Takashasi and many others detect very few neutrons associated with
CANR.
2) Occasionally, when neutrons are detected, several researchers detect 
energies near 2.5 MeV  and, in Takashasi's case,  energies near 4 MeV. 
I agree, the 7 MeV signal is too small to be real.
3) The number of neutrons is too small to be associated with energy
production. Therefore, the details of these studies are not important to
CANR.
4) However, a consistent, very low-level emission is seen by many
people, which raises a question about the source.  I do not want to
address this question here.

> > > Yes, there were two methods employed for part of the measurements, but
> > > if you read the paper carefully you will learn that the crucial claims
> > > for variations in activity all derive from just the Geiger counter
> > > measurement!
> >
> > Yes, but both detectors showed the same behavior when they were
> > compared.  The GM counter was then used for convenience. Even if the GM
> > counter is not detecting electrons directly, it is detecting something
> > which is proportional to the electron current. I do not see why this
> > would be a problem.
> >
> The GM tube and the electrometer may well track until the actual
> experiment
> is performed.  That does not prove that they will track under all
> conditions.
> The GM tube is NOT detecting something that remains proportional to the
> electron current.  There are too many intermediate processes involved.
> If
> you will look more critically at the experimental conditions you will
> note
> that the most effective vacuum pump in the system is actually the
> titanium
> smoke, and that the system likely has leaks due to the required thin
> window
> for the GM detector.  What that means is that the reactive titanium is
> likely
> changing chemical composition.  That, as I noted, can make a big
> difference
> in the GM response seen for a given level of tritium activity.

You have no way of knowing that the window leaks.  Just because you can
imagine a window leaking does not make it so. A leak would have quickly
turned the Ti smoke into TiO2 smoke which would have been easily seen.  

> >
> > The liquid was specified as vacuum pump oil. A stream of gas was
> > constantly flushing the system.  Consequently, any helium that might
> > enter was being flushed out. When no excess heat was produced, the
> > helium content of the gas was always close to the detection limit.  The
> > work of Bush, which supports Miles-Bush, used an all-steel system and a
> > more sensitive mass spectrometer.  As a result the He background was
> > smaller. Nevertheless, a significant He signal was always seen when
> > excess heat was measured. Bush used an entirely different kind of
> > calorimeter as well. Why do you presume that Miles, Bush and I continue
> > to overlook the possibility of He leaks.  This is an obvious problem
> > which has been handled very well by the experimenters.  It is only Blue
> > who insists this possibility is real in the face of facts to the
> > contrary.
> 
> The helium is being "flushed out" is it?  Estimate the velocity of the
> gas stream and compare it to the diffusion speed for helium.  Helium
> is so good at swimming upstream against a gas flow that some commercial
> leak detectors depend on that for their operation!  As for "vacuum pump
> oil" forming a helium-tight seal, don't bet the farm on that one either.
> Miles-Bush certainly did not handle the obvious problem of helium leaks
> very well in their initial series  of measurements.  They proceeded
> as if they were totally unaware of the potential problems.  For example,
> sending the control samples to Texas by air while the samples from
> the electrolysis went by some form of surface transport (unspecified)
> would, by itself, call the validity of the controls into question.

All leak detectors I have ever used pump on the system or on a probe in
order to suck helium into the device with the air stream.  Of course
helium diffuses in static air, but an air flow is very successful in
preventing counter diffusion. At some point Dick's arguments begin to
look trivial and an act of desperation. 

> I am, at present, working my way through the reviews Ed sent me.  As
> noted
> above I find the Takahashi neutron data less than convincing evidence
> for
> much of anything, and the claimed rates are much too low to be useful in
> any interpretation of the CANR process claimed to produce watts of
> power.
> I don't understand why they are included in a review.

The reason for including the Takashasi work in a review is because all
physicists are interested in neutron production, and it is necessary to
show an example of what has been measured. I state in the review that
the work has little application to CANR because of the small signal.  If
I left out such data, Dick would now be wanting to know why I ignored
the neutron emission data just as he complains because I ignore the data
in our discussions.  Dick, you are very hard to please.

> I find the analogy to the testing for HT superconductivity to be a bit
> strained.  A determination of which materials showed the phenomena was,
> of course, significant.  I don't see the same checking for differences
> in materials as having played the same role in CANR investigations.
> In fact the investigators have had great difficulty demonstrating
> a robust effect in even a single material.  Then they must resort to
> asserting that subtle, but recognized, differences between samples of
> nominally the same material account for the failure to replicate
> any results to a degree that goes beyond some general pattern.

> > Yes, Dick is correct. But to see the patterns, you must first take the
> > trouble to examine the data as if it were free of error. Gradually, as
> > the pattern becomes more robust, some of the data outside of the pattern
> > can be examined for error to see if they are worthy of supporting a new
> > pattern. This is a very gray area requiring holding different levels of
> > opinion at the same time. Someone who thinks the phenomenon is nonsense
> > in the first place would naturally think all positive results are caused
> > by error, hence all patterns are the result of random variations.  This
> > being the general view, it is very hard to use the available data to
> > make a case.  Of course, this is why important discoveries are only made
> > by a few people - ones who have the mental tools to use this process.
> 
> When it comes to seeing patterns in data, I seem to be better at it than
> are many of the CANR advocates.  It just may be that the patterns being
> overlooked by them don't support their claims, but rather indicate that
> something else is going on.  For example, the very first evidence for
> excess heat published by McKubre has a signature that I saw as
> indicative
> of electrical cross talk between signals.  No one else saw the pattern!
> Strange to say it was never replicated, an observation that is entirely
> consistent with my hypotheses regarding the origins of the "effect."
> As for thinking all positive results are caused by error, it is
> certainly
> appropriate to recognize that error may play a role in any observation.
> 
> As for withholding judgement until the evidence becomes more robust,>
> I could agree with Ed on this point if, in tracking the history of CANR
> claims, we saw a pattern that "becomes more robust."  If McKubre had
> actually gotten to something "robust" why would he inform Scott Little
> that there is little point in attempting a replication?  If CETI and
> Miley had gotten to something "robust" why did the kits they sold not
> lead
> to numerous replications?  If the electrolysis as practiced by Pons
> and Fleischmann led to a "robust" result why can't we answer a simple
> question regarding light vs. heavy water for the electrolyte?
> 
> My point is that we are nolonger "up front" with these claims.  Many
> early
> results were rejected because that was the proper way to treat them.
> Pons and Fleischmann's claims regarding neutron detection were clearly
> faulty.  De Nino's claims were clearly faulty.  Yamaguchi's claims were
> faulty.  Do I need to run through the entire sad list?  Some of the
> data that Ed Storms still references are not correct.  Before there
> can be the sort of evaluation of CANR that Ed Storms claims to desire
> we have to get down to those results that may have merit.  As for
> my rejection of claims on the basis of "very unlikely and generally
> previously reduced errors", we are clearly dealing with something
> that is "very unlikely."  It follows that unlikely error sources have
> to be considered along with unlikely physical phenomena.  Until you
> have something "robust" upon which to base your claims, I don't
> see that my wild imaginings are further out of bounds than are
> yours.

Anyone with an imagination or any good lawyer can come up with an
explanation for anything. All experimental results are faulty.  Saying
this means nothing. When the phenomenon is subtle, the results are
easily ignored.  The question is, "Should a responsible scientist reject
such claims or should he explore the subtle features with the
expectation of finding a new understanding"? Disappointment later is
better than unwarranted rejection earlier.  If the debate boils down to
whether Dick's explanations are more plausible than mine, then we will
get nowhere. 

> > You are right, I did not explain this very well.  At constant current,
> > the voltage is free to change by any amount within the capability of the
> > power supply.  The problem is how fast can this change take place.  The
> > output of the power supply has a capacitor which prevents rapid changes
> > in voltage. As a result, as the resistance of the cell changes, both
> > voltage and current fluctuate, thereby causing the rapid voltage changes
> > to be damped. Both current and voltage are measured at the cell and the
> > values are averaged over many readings taken for about a minute.  As a
> > result, these random fluctuations are averaged and only a net drift in
> > value is seen. It has been suggested that these random fluctuations are
> > not properly measured, hence the applied power is in error. If
> > calibration is done using electrolytic power, the suggested error is
> > common to both the calibration and the condition of excess power.
> > Therefore, it will cancel out when the difference is taken.
> >
> Oh my, what a can of worms is lurking in those words.  Electric power
> is the instanaeous product of current and voltage.  Averaging the
> voltage and the current over a period of the order of a minute before
> forming that product is potentially a source of error.  Acknowledging
> the fact that the power supply may not be capable of maintaining
> constant current under a rapidly flucuating load is yet another
> potential
> source of error.  In the face of such possibilities it becomes even more
> important that calibrations be performed under conditions that match,
> with arbitrary precision, the operating conditions of the experiment.
> That, I fear, is an ideal that is extremely difficult to achieve.

I did not say each was separately averaged over a minute.  The voltage
and current are measured simultaneously, i.e. within 0.01 sec. In my
present set up, a reading is taken every 0.1 sec and about 500 such
readings are averaged. The product is the average power during this
interval. This same procedure is used during calibration.  Different
time intervals have been explored and there is very little difference
except more points lower the random variations somewhat. 

> > Before Dick has a chance to raise this possibility, suppose the amount
> > of random fluctuation increases as the palladium becomes fully loaded,
> > i.e. when the supposed special condition forms. Further suppose, the
> > error caused by these random fluctuations increases in such a way that
> > the measured applied power is smaller than the actual power.  The result
> > would be an apparent excess. Actually seen is a gradual increase (not
> > decrease) in applied voltage (constant current) as loading increases. In
> > addition, we would have to believe that many different types of power
> > supplies and data acquisition systems can suffer from this effect and
> > that palladium is able to initiate this error regardless of its size or
> > shape, and then only when a critical composition was achieved. The
> > question is, "How willing are you to accept this remote possibility
> > instead of accepting the claims for excess energy"?
> 
> I reread the above several times because, it seems, Ed Storms is making
> my case for me!  What he is asserting, I suppose, is that given enough
> different systems suffering from a variety of systematic errors the
> pattern for CANR would be washed out by the experimental differences.
> if there were not a real physical phenomena involved.  As I noted
> long ago, that actually would be the case were it not for the "post
> selection" of results.  The actual experimental average for all
> excess heat measurements is essentially zero.

I have no idea how Dick arrives at the pronouncement, "The actual
experimental average for all excess heat measurements is essentially
zero."  This is a classic example of assuming one's conclusions.  If one
wished to nit pick, I could point out that people do not measure
negative heats.  The values are either zero or positive within the
random variation of the measurements. Therefore, any average of all
measurements will always be positive.  However, this whole argument is
completely irrelevant because the large values of excess power obtained
by various workers do not fit the pattern expected for random errors. 
Why do we have to keep discussing this subject?  If a robust result is
required, then we need to discuss something other than the
Pons-Fleischmann part of CANR, or we need to end this discussion and
wait for some presently ongoing studies to be published.

> Now one important feature of experimental science is that while there
> is only one way to make a correct measurement there is an infinite
> variety of ways in which to screw up that measurement.  I don't believe
> that there is likely one total explanation for all the CANR claims.
> Obviously the methods and the results are both too varied for that
> to be the case.  I think it is important to note how little agreement
> there is, in detail, about the way in which "excess heat" manifests
> itself.  There literally is no pattern to hang ones hat on, so the
> minor variations in experimental protocols and equipment may well
> be a dominant factor in the outcomes, just as Ed Storms suggests.

Dick makes the pronouncement that "There literally is no pattern to hang
ones hat on" in spite of my pointing out several patterns.  So, we have
made no progress because Dick does not agree with the way I interpret
experimental results.  He has his own interpretation and no amount of
discussion makes a change. We are rapidly reaching the point of
diminishing returns. 

> > These experiments do have some shortcomings including the ones noted by
> > Dick. Once boiling is achieved, the power applied to the cell is noted
> > by a computer readout and the amount of vapor being produced and
> > collected is recorded. The claim is that, at this time, more water is
> > being lost as vapor than is justified by the applied power. On the other
> > hand, problems do exist.  The vapor can contain droplets; the
> > calorimeter is complex, requiring an uncertain calibration; and the data
> > published by the experimenters are not sufficiently detailed to allow a
> > proper evaluation to be made. Attempts to duplicate the work at NHE were
> > not successful for various reasons.  Consequently, I do not address
> > these claims in my recent review. They are not useful for demonstrating
> > the phenomenon to skeptics and they are only interesting because they,
> > if true, further confirm a positive temperature coefficient.
> 
> If these results are as marginal as Ed and I now appear to agree the
> best
> thing for everyone is to take them off the table.  They should get no
> further
> consideration.  However, Ed can't quite let them go.  He wants to say
> they
> confirm something about his experiments.  Let me suggest that tying
> good experiments to bad experiments cannot possibly strengthen the
> Storms
> position.  If there is "a positive temperature coefficient" and someone
> has a robust experiment on which to test that hypotheses it ought to be
> a piece of cake to demonstrate the reality of said temperature
> dependence.
> The fact that Ed wants to refer to a questionable result may be telling
> us something about just how "robust" the evidence is.

The debate has become more like a court battle without a judge.  When I
admit an error may exist, Dick's response is "ha ha, I got you".  At the
same time, he will not admit that any of his explanations might be
faulty. He will find a reason to complain no matter what. I did not
raise the question of the Pons-Fleischmann boiling claims, he did.  I
simply answered a question he raised because each experimental claim has
a potential to add insight.  Sometimes we do not yet know what this
insight might be. As a result, the work is retained as part of the
complex knowledge base and is worth discussing. On the other hand, if
everyone waited for robust claims, no one would even do the experiments
from which such claims could be made.  If everyone took the approach
advocated by Dick, nothing new would be discovered unless it was
perfectly obvious and easily replicated.  Unfortunately, most such
discoveries have already been made.   Ed Storms

Subject:  Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate 11.9.98
      Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:30:09 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: CF debate, Storms 1993 report
> 11.6.98
>   Date:  Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:50:25 -0500 (EST)
>   From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Fine with me!  I have been trying to get CANR advocates to join me in a
> "what-if" game.  But that is pointless unless there are some rules we
> can agree on such as what systems are involved (atoms, crystal lattices,
> nuclei, and such) and what physics describes those systems (quantum
> mechanics).  So I did make a pronouncement, but not to exclude any new
> phenomena.  Rather I think it is important that we keep some contact
> with orthodoxy.  By that I mean that I presume that nucleon numbers
> are conserved, and that quantum perturbation theory can still provide
> a framework within which to begin a discussion of CANR, just to give
> two examples. 
> >
> > No, I do not walk away.  I accept what nature is telling me.  There is
> > very little radiation and nothing I can do will change this fact. Does
> > this mean that nuclear reactions are not occurring, as you would
> > conclude, or does it mean that the nature of the nuclear reactions has
> > been changed by the environment? Is this question not worthy of
> > exploration?  By exploration, I mean can you try to find a path between
> > the conventional, which doesn't work, to a new position that might work.
> > We need some ideas that can be tested.
> 
> OK this outlines an area within which we can discuss the claims for CANR
> success.  In fact I have been trying, for years, to get a meaningful
> discussion of how the chemical environment can influence a nuclear
> reaction and what the nature of the phenomena would likely be.  It seems
> to me the greatest reluctance to explore this area has been shown by the
> advocates of CANR. As I have pointed out, there is a host of
> observations on this topic that should not be ignored.
> 
> Let me initiate the discussion by a review of what I think it means to
> say that the chemical environment alters a nuclear reaction process and
> how one could possible expect to validate the phenomena that may arise.
> 
> A nuclear reaction, in this context, involves the rearrangement of
> nucleons from a grouping as one set of nuclei to a different grouping
> such that the total binding (among other things) is altered.  Since the
> context requires a net energy release with no significant external
> energy source present, we seem to be limited to the consideration of
> exoergic reactions. Since deuterium is, at least in some studies, a key
> ingredient, and 4He is often seen as a primary product it is natural to
> consider the reaction d + d -> 4He + 23 MeV.
> 
> Now one of my remarks was that I see no reason to compartmentalize this
> reaction on the basis of temperature in the chemical environment.  There
> is no fundamental physics of which I am aware that links lattice
> temperature to the nuclear system in a very significant way.  Now if you
> are to assert a contrary opinion I would appeal to experimental
> observations as a means for validiting one viewpoint or the other.  What
> do we know about the effect of lattice temperature on nuclear reactions?

Temperature has little effect on the nucleus but it does alter the
nature of the chemical environment. Therefore, temperature needs to be
viewed as promoting the required conditions in the environment which,
when achieved, allow nuclear interaction to occur.

> While much emphasis in the early stages of the cold fusion debate was
> placed on the finding of some mechanism to reduce the coulomb barrier
> between two deuterons, I frequently pointed out that success in that
> regard would still not reconcile claimed observations with expectations
> based on nuclear
> reaction studies.  It is generally useful in this context to consider a
> reaction as a two-step process starting with the formation of an
> intermediate state at high excitation and ending with the decay of that
> intermediate state to the final state in which all nuclear constituants
> have returned to a state that is, at least, stable against further
> regrouping of the nucleons involved.  Again I don't insist on this
> approach, but simply wish to define a context for further discussion.
> If we can show that this will not work, it does advance the discussion.
> 
> In the case of deuteron fusion the said intermediate state will be 4He
> at roughly 23 MeV excitation energy.  If you have an alternative you
> would like to consider, please state it.

This is the conventional model which does not work. I agree, the process
can not involve d+d=4He as an isolated reaction. 

I think we are limited to four possibilities at the present time:
1. The process occurs between waves as the Chubbs propose,
2. The process occurs between 3 or 4 deuterons as Takahashi proposes,
3. The process is alpha emission after a metal-deuteron reaction, or
4. The process involves a hydrogen or deuterium nuclei which has been
partially neutrallized by its electron, as proposed in several
variations by Dufour, Mills and Kozima.

Each of these models has its own problems, but each is consistent with
the observations. I have followed the Chubb-Blue debate and have little
hope that any of these suggested models will suffer a better fate. In
any case, lets start with the Takahashi model.

> So my assertion, in this context, is that if fusion is initiated and
> results in the regrouping of 2 pairs of nucleons into a single
> four-nucleon cluster, we can make certain assertions as to likely final
> outcomes under a variety of assumptions with regard to the chemical
> environment and its possible influence.
> 
> First assumption to consider is, I believe, that the chemical
> environment has no influence whatsoever.  I personally have observed
> nuclear reactions in a metal matrix such as titanium, zirconium, nickel,
> etc. and those observations are generally consistant with the
> no-influence hypothesis. I am not alone in having made such
> observations.

 The effect, whatever it is, does not occur in "normal" material. 
Therefore, the common observations showing lack of interaction between
the chemical environment and the nucleus does not apply. It would be
interesting to place a radioactive material in palladium and see how the
nuclear reaction was altered when the nuclear-active-state was produced.
 
> Furthermore I think we can understand there being no observable effect
> on fusion by the surrounding chemical environment.  Thus it is not a
> strange thing to consider in any respect.  It fits our general picture
> of CANR processes.
> 
> Now Ed Storms, and others, suggest that we consider an alternative
> picture involving, under certain conditions, very dramatic changes in
> nuclear reation processes.  But the systems in which these changes are
> presumed to occur are remarkable similar to systems in which, by direct
> observation, no such effects are seen.  It is a puzzle at two levels.
> The chemical environment is "very ordinary", but the effect is very
> dramatic.

I am saying that the environment is not "very ordinary".  That is the
essential issue.  The environment is very unusual and the likes of it
are not seen in normal experience.  We must think of a material that is
hard to make and has several unusual properties, not the least of which
that it can assist the occurrence of several nuclear reactions. In
addition, such materials can occur in living systems. To make matters
worse, these unusual regions only occur as isolated, small regions so
that the apparent, average properties of the material remains normal.
Any hope of understanding the effect requires we examine the nature of
these small regions. Any discussion of the average properties is a waste
of time.
 
> Generally speaking, CANR effects are seen as perturbations on systems
> that retain something very close to their unperturbed behavior.  Thus
> one can implant a radioisotope in a crystal lattice and then observe its
> subsequent decay, looking for effects on that decay that can be
> attributed to the perturbing effects of the chemical environment.  The
> Moessbauer effect is a fine example of just this class of phenomena.
> While the effect is very dramatic in some respects, it is important to
> note that most of the gross behavior of the decay is hardly altered.

However, the Mossbauer effect occurs in any old crystalline material.
What effect would be seen in a nuclear-active-material?
 
> I would anticipate something similar to that behavior, should there be
> a perturbing effect of a palladium lattice on the fusion of two
> deuterons.  In particular such a perturbation is unlikely, I would
> suggest, to totally supress the emission of neutrons. It is clear that
> if the phenomena has the characteristics Ed Storms would ascribe to it,
> we are not dealing with small perturbations. The claims for CANR
> success, if they are correct, demand major alterations in nuclear wave
> functions.  The choice, it seems to me, is to consider either unexpected
> experimental difficulties or mindboggling theoretical problems.  I do
> not get the impression that Ed Storms has the proper respect for just
> what is required to accommodate his assessment of the experimental
> evidence. He seems to think you can turn off neutron emission as easily
> as turning off a light.  I don't think so.

All we need to do is abandon the idea of a normal, isolated d+d=4He
reaction and all of the problems with no neutron emission disappear. 
Other problems appear, but that is a different story.   Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 21:12:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22257;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:08:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:08:56 -0800
Message-ID: <36491CF0.1311 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:13:20 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: recombination  artifact  11.10.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"EDYo4.0.gR5.elHIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24406
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: Storms 1993 report 11.7.98
  Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:25 -0400 (EDT)
  From:    Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

To: Ed Storms
>From : Kirk Shanahan

Dr. Storms, 

You may or may not be aware that I have been interested in the general
arena of cold fusion (CF) since mid-1995, and I have commented on
various aspects of current work via several mechanisms.  I have been
following the discussion between you and Dick Blue, and now that you
have migrated away from the theoretical to the experimental, I would
like to ask your opinion on a scenario I proposed some time ago.

I would like to focus on electrochemical cells of the closed variety
that have an integral recombiner, and I would like to propose a
potential way to get an apparent excess heat reading.  I am not an
expert in this and am really just trying to understand the situation.  I
would appreciate any thoughts and ideas regarding my proposal.

Initially in my conceptual closed cell, a steady state is established
wherein water is split into H2 (or D2) and O2 and those gases transport
themselves to the recombination catalyst, where they react to reform
water, thereby releasing heat.  As I envision it, the calorimeter is not
perfect in that some heat is lost, more through the top where the
penetrations occur for the electrode wires, gas vents, etc. than from
the region of the cell where the electrolyte is located.  This could
also occur because the heat transfer surfaces used to capture the cell
heat do not as fully cover the gas space in relation to the liquid space
due to simple physical limitations.  Therefore, a calibration is 
conducted to relate the input power or energy to the output signal.  The 
calibration constant derived from this procedure is used to
algebraically adjust the measured signal to a power or energy, such that
a unity performance is established (Pout=Pin).

One key thing I have picked up in my study of CF calorimetry is the
continuing warnings about non-homogeneous conditions inside the cell
leading to potential errors.  It seems to me that the closed cell is
clearly non-homogeneous with respect to heat source distribution. 
Specifically, a significant fraction of the internal heat in the cell is
generated at the recombiner.  Furthermore, I have observed that the heat
capturing surfaces of the calorimeter are usually biased towards the
liquid region, especially since it is difficult to eliminate heat flow
out of the penetrations I mentioned before.  Without very careful 
design, the gas space of the cell may not have much heat transfer area
for capturing the evolved heat.  Thus I suspect that the heat captured
by the calorimeter is biased towards heat produced in the liquid.  In
the steady state, non-CF condition, this bias is calibrated out.

Now let's move to the situation where an excess heat signal has
developed.  We all know that recombination can occur at the electrodes
under certain conditions.  (We also know it doesn't always do so.)  Let
me postulate that the root cause of the excess heat signal is a shift
from recombination at the recombiner to the electrode. Now a fraction
of the heat formerly being produced in the gas space is now being
produced in the liquid, and the calorimeter easily detects this.  This
produces the baseline shift associated with the excess heat signal.
The calibration procedures usually use an immersed Joule heater which
well simulates the heat being produced at the electrode, so I anticipate
the excess signal is relatively well measured.  However the heat arising
in the gas space is not so well accounted for.

As you can see, this scenario varies from the standard one in that as
opposed to assuming the excess heat signal arises from a true unknown
new heat source, I postulate an internal redistribution of the base
'unity-performance' heat.  I also postulate a sensitivity problem in
detecting heat produced at the recombiner, with a significant fraction
of that heat not actually registering in the calorimeter.  This allows a
minimal impact on the cell baseline when removing heat from the
recombiner, but a more significant impact when that heat reappears in
the liquid.

With the recombination occurring at the electrodes now, an additional
(but possibly trivial) confounding factor arises.  In the non-excess
heat steady state the gases transported to the gas space of the cell
carry some heat with them.  How much is dependent primarily on the heat
transferred to the liquid as they pass through the electrolyte.  (The
fundamental question being whether the cell is at equilibrium or just at
steady state.)  That should be dependent on the contact time between
bubbles and liquid, and the temperature differential between them. 
There is some extant research suggesting that mixing may be inadequate
in CF cells in some cases.  If that were true in my closed cell, then
I would expect the bubbles to establish temperature gradients in the
radial direction in the cell, since they should institute stirring
primarily in the vertical direction.  So, when the recombination shifts
from the recombiner to the electrode, the number of bubbles traversing
the liquid to the gas space will decrease, resulting in a decreased heat
transport and possibly a decreased stratification in the cell.  I am
unclear if these effects would introduce a baseline shift in the cell's
signal, or if the new local heat source would override the situation. 
If present, this could well introduce some non-linearities in capture
efficiencies and cell calibration.

So, in summary what I am postulating is simply an effect of
non-homogeniety in the cell.  As the quality of the calorimeter's design
improves, specifically, as the gas space is more completely covered by
heat transfer surfaces, the effect of the shift in heat source location
should become less and less.  I have appended below some simplistic
algebra to do a 'back-of-the-envelope'  calculation of possible
magnitudes of the effect I postulate.  A quick spreadsheet calc
indicated that with an input power of 10W, a 50-100 mW excess heat
signal is quite possible.

In my prior posting of this proposal, I pointed out that one simple way
to check this is to place a second calibration resistor in the gas
space, preferably in contact with the recombiner, but failing that as
near to the top of the cell as possible (and as far from a calorimeter
heat transfer surface as possible).

It should be obvious from my scenario that I feel that the root of the
CF effect is most likely a surface recombination reaction.  In fact if
the calorimeter designs suffer from the problem I have outlined above,
an over-unity performance has not been established.  However, I do agree
an effect seems to be there, and I note that a postulate involving
active surface recombination sites that have to be 'grown in' and that
have a finite lifetime would seem to fit the observations as well as an
unknown nuclear reaction.

Thanks in advance!  (And thanks to Rich Murray for facilitating the
discussion.)

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

Back-of-the-enelope algebra

Input Heat = Hin - equivalent calculated from I2R for example 
Output Heat = Ho - theoretically must equal Hin
Hg - Heat produced in the gas space
Hl - Heat produced in the liquid space       Note: Hg + Hl == Hin == Ho
Hc - The output heat captured by the calorimeter  Note:  Hc < Ho
(usually, Hc=Ho means perfect calorimeter)

k1 - fraction of heat in gas space captured by calorimeter
k2 - fraction of heat in liquid space captured by calorimeter

        Hc = k1*Hg + k2*Hl

Note that my scenario leads us to assume k1<k2 (In a well designed
calorimeter, k2~1)

kc - the cell calibration constant, defined by:

      Hin = Ho = kc*Hc = kc*k1Hg + kc*k2*Hl

for the baseline steady-state, unity performance case.
Note that kc = Hin/Hc, which should at lowest = 1 (perfect calorimeter),
and usually will be >1

Now, the excess heat case:

X = excess heat

In this case Hc is modified as:

        Hc' = k1*(Hg - X) + k2*(Hl +X)

and the new Ho == Ho' = kc*Hc'

and thus    Ho'/Ho =  1  +  { (X/Ho) * kc *(k2 - k1) }

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 21:44:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA00414;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:43:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:43:43 -0800
Message-ID: <000b01be0d36$21210600$7b55ddcf craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Regarding SETI...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 23:42:53 -0600
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 VAA00350
Resent-Message-ID: <"cjKfJ.0.06.EGIIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24407
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

When I tune my short-wave radio to 27.185 MHz, the frequency of CB Channel 19, I don't typically hear any one message, nor can I even distinguish any intelligent conversation, but the presence of a signal there is undeniable. The sound is that of a backgr

ound ROAR perversely equivalent to the sound of a freight train passing within 10 yards. As I understand it, our SETI guys have been pointing their antennas at nearby stars, looking for signals at various frequencies. But can't we do better if we point ou

r antennas at the Andromeda Galaxy. Billions and Billions of suns should be home to millions and millions of intelligent civilizations. We should be able to pick up a ROAR, on all frequencies, similar to the background noise on Channel 19. 

Is the distance that impenetrable?

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 10 23:40:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28438;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 23:37:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 23:37:27 -0800
Message-ID: <36494694.3F57 ca-ois.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:11:00 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Regarding SETI...
References: <000b01be0d36$21210600$7b55ddcf craig>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-d6GL2.0.Cy6.twJIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24408
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Craig Haynie wrote:
> 
>

(snip)

> Is the distance that impenetrable?

With the program presently in place (The "SETI League" and their
absurdly complex theory
of extraterrestrial radio communication modes), the answer to that is a
definite yes. To a passive recieving antenna noise is noise , and does
not  convey any usefull information. Filtering out multiple receptions
as in your channel 19 example is an impossible task for your CB
reciever. 

Suppose however that you could direct and focus the output of your CB
antenna in the transmit mode in a specific direction , say towards the
site of a recieving antenna whose _impedance_ (to ground - the "matter
field") can be modulated. When the ground return impedance was high, an
ammeter placed in series with the cathode of your output driver device
(transistor emitter) would be low. Conversely , when the ground return
impedance at the remote site went low, your ammeter reading would
increase. 

This method has no dependence on the value of the speed of light in free
space, because you are utilizing the matter field, explained in more
detail in works such as "General Relativity and Matter" by Mendel Sachs
(Riedel, 1982), among others**   

---Jim Ostrowski.

**footnote:

"..therefore, assuming (with Wheeler and Feynman) that the absorber is
an essential element in the mechanism of radiation process, interstellar
communication may only be a matter of modulating our receptions and
observing our transmissions.

"A model for such a universal communications network would be a large
number of radio frequency sources, none of them modulated as carriers.
This , of course, is exactly what Earth's radio astronomers have found.

"Meanwhile, here we sit with several good parabolic antennas, presumably
waiting for something exciting to happen, perhaps in Morse code. What we
should be doing is sending off a few megawatts and observing this for
systematic changes , while modulating the energy received from elsewhere
in a regular way"

-Philip B. Wright , 1977


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 02:01:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA27719;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:00:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:00:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199811110959.DAA28543 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 04:58:33 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Another Suncruiser Photo?
Resent-Message-ID: <"r5dG42.0._m6.o0MIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24409
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Check out the latest SOHO photo at
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9810/eithe_soho13_big.gif. Look at
the very bottom of the photo, where you will see a very distant view of
what appears to be the "suncruiser," in one of the full resolution photos
from the reactivated SOHO satellite. It should be noted that solar north in
this photo is to the left, and hence the "suncruiser" is positioned just
below the solar equator, and oriented almost parallel to it.

Now go to the original "suncruiser" website at
http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/comet.htm, and check out the photo on that
page, which was taken before SOHO began to malfunction, several months ago.
Since solar north was at the top of the frame in the earlier photos, it
follows that the suncruiser is positioned just below the solar equator in
that photo as well.

The latest SOHO photo has two implications that  are worth mentioning:

(1) The appearance of the "suncruiser" in this photo refutes the
specularion, posted a week or so ago, that it was a photographic anomaly.
The theory propounded in that earlier post was that, since the "suncruiser"
appeared in a horizontal orientation in all the photos, it was probably
caused by a flaw in the camera lens. In the latest photo, however, the
camera has been rotated about 90 degrees from its former orientation, and
yet the "suncruiser" still appears. The implication is that this image is
not caused by a flaw in the camera lens, but by a real object that is
positioned not very far from the sun.

(2) The other day I raised the possibility that SOHO had been turned off
because governmental authorities wanted to prevent transmission of further
"suncruiser" photos. That now appears to not be the case. Instead, it may
be that those who are looking at these photos are
simply not paying any attention to it and, as a result, neither is the
government. I would therefore tend at this point to believe the official
explanation for the fact that SOHO was offline for several months--to wit:
SOHO's orientation was screwed up due to the inadvertent misfiring of its
booster rockets, resulting in a new spin axis in which its solar panels
were temporarily aligned edge-on to the sun. My suspicions have not been
entirely allayed, however, due to the fact that the only photos that SOHO
appears to be transmitting now are high-resolution photos. The result is a
very narrow field of vision which, if SOHO is closer to the sun than the
"suncruiser," will render any more close-up photos of the "suncruiser"
impossible. (Does anybody know where I can find any low-res photos taken by
SOHO after it was turned back on?)

So there you have it: more food for thought!

--Mitchell Jones}***




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 02:32:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA32106;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:30:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:30:12 -0800
Message-ID: <01d001be0d5d$ccde6880$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Wow! 2.7 Lbs.of H2 stored in a Lb. of Graphite Nanofibers!
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:24:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"65lpf3.0.ar7.pSMIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24410
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If the
http://www.itri.loyola.edu/nano/us_r_n_d/09_03.htm

Molecular Hydrogen storage is so, converting an I.C. engine to use a
Pressure Swing Adsorption
Oxygen Separator and using steam off an exhaust heat exchanger as a working
fluid, the old "Tin Lizzie" could do as well as a fuel cell-electric
vehicle.

The 25 Kilowatt-Hrs/Lb to electrolyze water to get the Hydrogen could come
from Solar Photovoltaic or Windpower, not to mention reacting Biomass or
Coal with water or Pyrolyzing crude oil to get Carbon and Hydrogen.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 03:35:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA09455;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:32:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:32:34 -0800
Message-ID: <01e601be0d66$8256bb60$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Oxygen (http://www.airproducts.com/gases/oxgen.html)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 04:28:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0D2B.AA6D57C0"
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: <"Dm35W3.0.fJ2.INNIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24411
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_0021_01BE0D2B.AA6D57C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PSA Oxygen Separators

http://www.airproducts.com/gases/oxgen.html

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0D2B.AA6D57C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Oxygen.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Oxygen.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.airproducts.com/gases/oxgen.html
Modified=00A7DE19660DBE01D0

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE0D2B.AA6D57C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 05:57:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06290;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:55:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:55:37 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3649974C.91C4FF71 css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:55:24 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
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 <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Blue Mountain is World's Fastest Computer
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 FAA06252
Resent-Message-ID: <"q9Un8.0.6Y1.PTPIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24412
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Energy Department, Silicon Graphics Unveil Record-breaking Supercomputer
Blue Mountain is World's Fastest Computer and Advanced Graphics System

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) today
unveiled the world's fastest computer, with the world's most powerful advanced
graphics system. The machine, code named Blue Mountain, is located at the
Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. Blue Mountain is the
latest advancement in the Energy Department's stockpile stewardship program
which uses science-based methods to assess and certify the safety, security and
reliability of nuclear weapons without underground nuclear testing. 

Blue Mountain ran Linpack, one of the computer industry's standard speed tests
for big computers, at a fast 1.6 trillion operations per second (teraOps)
............
At the heart of Blue Mountain are 48 commercially available Silicon Graphics�
Cray� Origin2000TM servers containing a total of 6,144 processors. Blue Mountain
is organized into 48, 128-processor shared memory multi-processors, or SMPs. The
system is designed so the cluster of 48 SMPs - all commercially available
servers - behave like a single computer. These 48 SMPs can communicate with each
other at world-record sustained speeds in excess of 650 gigabits a second. Blue
Mountain's 128-processor, 16-pipe Onyx2TM InfiniteReality� visualization
capability is especially valuable because it is an integral part of Blue
Mountain, not a separate unit. This visualization capability is twice that of
the former record-holding visualization supercomputer, another system developed
by Silicon Graphics.

Full Press Release:
   http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/1998/november/blue_mountain.html

--

Graphics Technology 

Blue Mountain's Onyx2 InfiniteReality visualization capability has set a world
record by becoming the first system to visualize time dependent data of a
gigabyte per time step. Performance of the system is over 3 billion voxels per
second and 150 million polygons per second. 
............
The adaptive mesh refinement code allows researchers to look at a specific area
of interest within a fluid, revealing in minute detail its behavior, resolving
the critical dynamics of weapons simulation. The accelerator code enables a two
billion particle simulation of an advanced particle accelerator used to examine
the behavior of beam halos - a beam physics phenomenon which effects the
efficiency and safety of accelerators for medical, scientific and defense
purposes. The visualization power of the Onyx2 system is also allowing
researchers their first look at this fully resolved, volume-rendered phenomenon
in action. 

Fact Sheet:
   http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/1998/november/lanl.html

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 08:12:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16895;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:09:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:09:47 -0800
Message-ID: <3649B675.5D5B6479 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:08:21 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
References: <199811110959.DAA28543 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rocpg.0.k74.9RRIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24413
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{Check out the latest SOHO photo at
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9810/eithe_soho13_big.gif. Look at
> the very bottom of the photo, where you will see a very distant view of
> what appears to be the "suncruiser," in one of the full resolution photos
> from the reactivated SOHO satellite. It should be noted that solar north in
> this photo is to the left, and hence the "suncruiser" is positioned just
> below the solar equator, and oriented almost parallel to it.
>
> Now go to the original "suncruiser" website at
> http://www.eagle-net.org/IWP/comet.htm, and check out the photo on that
> page, which was taken before SOHO began to malfunction, several months ago.
> Since solar north was at the top of the frame in the earlier photos, it
> follows that the suncruiser is positioned just below the solar equator in
> that photo as well.

<snip>

The link on the web page to the Lasco instrument mpeg files has an error.  The
parent directory for these files is:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/

The file which shows the motion of this anomalous object is:

980501_c3.mpg

You can go directly to the file by opening:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980501_c3.mpg

for the 191k mpeg file.  There are other files in the parent directory which
show this object orbit the sun, I'll dig through them and post the locations
here when I have time.

Terry


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 10:04:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24940;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:04:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:04:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3649CF4E.5DFDBB97 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:54:22 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
References: <199811110959.DAA28543 mail11.jump.net> <3649B675.5D5B6479@bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"49DG42.0.X56.N6TIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24414
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Terry Blanton wrote:

>
> The link on the web page to the Lasco instrument mpeg files has an error.  The
> parent directory for these files is:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/
>
> The file which shows the motion of this anomalous object is:
>
> 980501_c3.mpg
>
> You can go directly to the file by opening:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980501_c3.mpg
>
> for the 191k mpeg file.  There are other files in the parent directory which
> show this object orbit the sun, I'll dig through them and post the locations
> here when I have time.
>
> Terry

Okay, I stayed in for lunch to look for this.  The object disappears behind the
sun in:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980506_c3.mpg

five days later.  This mpeg has a beautiful solar ejecta.  The c2 image is even
better.

The object reappears on the opposite side in the June parent directory at:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg

and moves off to the right in subsequent days.  However, it seems to reappear
travelling in the opposite direction later:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980619_c3.mpg

A good closeup is seen in the higher resolution:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980610_c2.mpg

But if you check each daily observation, you find this is another object!

These mpegs are very interesting.  It's amazing how many objects are seen to move
across the SOHO field of view.  It captures a really large comet in:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980504_c3.mpg

at the top of the image and viewable in the next few days.  Most files are less
than 1/2 a meg, but it helps to have a HDSL internet link.

Terry




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 10:37:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05028;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:36:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:36:30 -0800
Message-ID: <3649D90F.ED9D4D4E bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:36:00 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
References: <199811110959.DAA28543 mail11.jump.net> <3649B675.5D5B6479@bellsouth.net> <3649CF4E.5DFDBB97@bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------0140DDB93402D28C7C4A2EAF"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XsS5g3.0.UE1.kaTIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24415
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


--------------0140DDB93402D28C7C4A2EAF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I tried not to screw this up but did.  Corrections below.


>
> Okay, I stayed in for lunch to look for this.  The object disappears behind the
> sun in:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980506_c3.mpg
>
> five days later.  This mpeg has a beautiful solar ejecta.  The c2 image is even
> better.
>
> The object reappears on the opposite side in the June parent directory at:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg

Still in the May directory at:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980519_c3.mpg

>
>
> and moves off to the right in subsequent days.  However, it seems to reappear
> travelling in the opposite direction later:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980619_c3.mpg

*This* is in the June directory at:

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg

>
>
> A good closeup is seen in the higher resolution:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980610_c2.mpg
>
> But if you check each daily observation, you find this is another object!
>
> These mpegs are very interesting.  It's amazing how many objects are seen to move
> across the SOHO field of view.  It captures a really large comet in:
>
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980504_c3.mpg
>
> at the top of the image and viewable in the next few days.  Most files are less
> than 1/2 a meg, but it helps to have a HDSL internet link.
>
> Terry

Sorry, folks.  First day with the new fingers.


--------------0140DDB93402D28C7C4A2EAF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I tried not to screw this up but did.&nbsp; Corrections below.
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>Okay, I stayed in for lunch to look for this.&nbsp; The object disappears
behind the
<br>sun in:
<p><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980506_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980506_c3.mpg</a>
<p>five days later.&nbsp; This mpeg has a beautiful solar ejecta.&nbsp;
The c2 image is even
<br>better.
<p>The object reappears on the opposite side in the June parent directory
at:
<p><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg</a></blockquote>
Still in the May directory at:
<p><A HREF="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980519_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980519_c3.mpg</A>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg"></a>&nbsp;
<p>and moves off to the right in subsequent days.&nbsp; However, it seems
to reappear
<br>travelling in the opposite direction later:
<p><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980619_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980619_c3.mpg</a></blockquote>

<p><br>*This* is in the June directory at:
<p><A HREF="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980604_c3.mpg</A>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980619_c3.mpg"></a>&nbsp;
<p>A good closeup is seen in the higher resolution:
<p><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980610_c2.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_06/980610_c2.mpg</a>
<p>But if you check each daily observation, you find this is another object!
<p>These mpegs are very interesting.&nbsp; It's amazing how many objects
are seen to move
<br>across the SOHO field of view.&nbsp; It captures a really large comet
in:
<p><a href="http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980504_c3.mpg">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1998_05/980504_c3.mpg</a>
<p>at the top of the image and viewable in the next few days.&nbsp; Most
files are less
<br>than 1/2 a meg, but it helps to have a HDSL internet link.
<p>Terry</blockquote>

<p><br>Sorry, folks.&nbsp; First day with the new fingers.
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------0140DDB93402D28C7C4A2EAF--


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 16:19:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18583;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:17:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:17:34 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:17:08 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Bye for now.
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.03.9811121203100.31991-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"fxhWP.0.8Y4.SaYIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24416
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Hi all,
	just to let everyone know I'm unsubscribing from the list. I've
learnt a lot from Vortex-l over the years but I find now that I hardly
ever read anything. I'll periodically scan John Logajan's homepage and
snoop on the list to see if anything interesting is happenning.

By the way, a process analogous to what I thought might happen in energy
supply is currently sweeping through the computer world. Free Software as
embodied by Linux is continually building momentum and appears will be a
genuine change in paradigm over the next two years. For those interested
in such things check out:

http://slashdot.org  for news, gossip and the sort arguments that occur
here, (similar personality types but different subject matter)

and

http://freshmeat.org  for the latest software goodies produced by open
source developers.

Finally my sources at Pacific Solar are very happy about their progress.
Expect solar cells to be reduced in price by a factor of 10 in about 2
years time.

Good luck to Jed and Gene. I hope you succede in getting genuine Science
into the open. Keep up those experiments Scott! You gotta keep these guys
honest (not Jed and Gene, I'm convinced of their honesty and deeply felt 
convictions).

Cheers

Martin Sevior


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 17:02:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA32733;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:00:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:00:38 -0800
From: VCockeram aol.com
Message-ID: <2367a597.364a2e2a aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:39:06 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Sample anemometer readings
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
Resent-Message-ID: <"fCkJe3.0.N_7.sCZIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24417
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 11/10/1998 10:07:00 Pacific Standard Time, ewall infinite-
energy.com writes:

> I can provide graphics to anyone who wants them, but will not post to
>  Vortex due to file size.
>  
>  
>  Ed Wall
Upload away Ed.  Thanks

Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 17:21:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08758;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:19:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:19:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981111192024.00980100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:20:24 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Bye for now.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.03.9811121203100.31991-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.
 edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"pOWAB3.0.i82.vUZIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24418
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:17 PM 11/12/98 +1100, Martin Sevior wrote:

>...Keep up those experiments Scott! You gotta keep these guys
>honest.

Thanks, Martin.  Sorry to see you go.  We need more real physicists like you!


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 17:32:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA14086;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:30:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:30:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981112093238.00acd370 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:32:38 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
In-Reply-To: <3649D90F.ED9D4D4E bellsouth.net>
References: <199811110959.DAA28543 mail11.jump.net>
 <3649B675.5D5B6479 bellsouth.net>
 <3649CF4E.5DFDBB97 bellsouth.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nEOa-.0.zR3.7fZIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24419
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Was just looking at some of the "debris" in these photos:

ftp://lasco6.nascom.nasa.gov/pub/lasco/status/LASCO_Debris_List

A particularly interesting one is the one listed as

06-Jun-1996     00:16           C3      Unusual shape (inverted V)

A low res image is:
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960606_c3.gif

High res image (although it is so large that the low res is OK)
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960606c3.gif

This doesn't look like "debris" to me because of its very
smooth edges.  In fact I think it looks rather like the
trajectory of a large object which takes evasive action
to avoid the sun!  If it is a trajectory, it is certainly
behaving in an anti-gravitational manner!

Anyone know what the exposure time is for these photos?

There is also a "suncruiser" looking thing on the left in
this photo, but it is pretty uninteresting compared to the
trajectory.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 18:10:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32402;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:08:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:08:45 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b26ff140a733 [208.228.222.50]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:15:14 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bye for now.
Cc: msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au
Resent-Message-ID: <"RXIqu.0.Cw7.jCaIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24420
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:17 PM 11/12/98, Martin Sevior wrote:
>Hi all,
>        just to let everyone know I'm unsubscribing from the list.
[snip]

Sorry to see you go.  Thanks for your many good contributions over the years.


>
>Finally my sources at Pacific Solar are very happy about their progress.
>Expect solar cells to be reduced in price by a factor of 10 in about 2
>years time.
[snip]

This combined with nanotube hydrogen storage and steady improvement in wind
technology make for a genuine and almost certain renewable energy
revolution over the next ten years, with or without "free energy."
Superconducting nanotubes, though far less certain, lie on the horizon as
well.  It seems the last month or so has seen the coming of a revolutionary
energy technology.  Too bad some of it didn't orginate here.  There can be
almost no doubt whatsoever now that petroleum distillates are on their way
out for good as an energy source.

Don't worry.  If something reasonably certain and revolutionary develops
we'll let you know.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 18:12:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01832;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:10:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:10:47 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981111211733.00b77de0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:17:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"v6Vjf1.0.US.cEaIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24421
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Hi.

Has anyone emailed any of the SOHO consortium members and asked
what !THEY! think these objects are? Obviously, member of this
list are not the only people to notice these objects. I'd have
to imagine the explanation to be a lot less interesting than
the speculation on the list.

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 18:47:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08197;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811120240.VAA20785 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Bye for now.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 21:45:14 -0000
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>, "VORTEX" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pc0Hx.0.-_1.QlaIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24422
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Good luck to Jed and Gene. I hope you succede in getting genuine Science
>into the open. Keep up those experiments Scott! You gotta keep these guys
>honest (not Jed and Gene, I'm convinced of their honesty and deeply felt 
>convictions).
>
>Cheers
>
>Martin Sevior
>
>

Thanks, Martin! Good luck in your new life. You WILL be hearing from us.

Gene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 19:44:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00290;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:42:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <364A60DD.14D ca-ois.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:15:25 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
References: <3.0.32.19981111211733.00b77de0 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sflZr.0.Q4.WabIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24423
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Has anyone emailed any of the SOHO consortium members and asked
> what !THEY! think these objects are?

I don't know. But this is an excellent idea. 

 Obviously, member of this
> list are not the only people to notice these objects. I'd have
> to imagine the explanation to be a lot less interesting than
> the speculation on the list.

The "consortium's" opinion  would be interesting in any event whatsoever
just so long as there is something contained in it that can be put to a
test. My guess is they would say
"booster rocket engine". Possible or not? This thing is a telescopic
lens , right? It seems reasonable that this engine would come in the
field of view now and then. 

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 20:03:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05765;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:01:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:01:35 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981111230815.00b78350 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:08:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Must see web site!!!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"d1zhA.0.xP1.UsbIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24424
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi all:

Just hired a russian mathematician who did his thesis on solitons.
Wanted to give the guy the address of the Light Bullet page, so I
went to yahoo and searched for soliton. I found (amongst other things)
this

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carhomep.htm

Is this guy hip or what?

Check out the PDF download area, especially.

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 22:24:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14178;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:22:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:22:23 -0800
Message-ID: <364A7FA7.42D8 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:26:47 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: LPGForsley aol.com, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Forsley: Kozima uses your null results  11.10.98
References: <9b49aaa7.36499bbb aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VgzNN3.0.ST3.VwdIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24425
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 11, 1998   Hello Larry Forsley,

Hideo Kozima, summarizes your null results, reported at ICCF-7, in Wayne
Green's Elemental Energy, # 28, Oct., 1998, and concludes, p. 36, "This
precise check of the reported reduction of radioactivity in the process
of electrolytic treatment with a null result again shows the decisive
effect of the background neutrons on the cold fusion phonomenon.  The
reduction of radioactivity in this case, is shown by many, including
S.E. Jones et al (7), for nuclear products.  From our point of view, the
exclusion of the background neutrons to improve S/N raio becomes a
decisive fault in the experiment, eliminating one of the necessary
components to produce the cold fusion experiment."  Kozima is trying to
find experimental support for his Trapped Neutron Cold Fusion (TNCF)
theory-- he has been publishing article after article in EE, explaining
just about every purported finding in the history of CANR with his
theory.  Unfortunately for the value and power of his theory, he has
been fitting the spurious CETI-Miley claims into it.

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 22:30:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA16385;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:28:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:28:23 -0800
Message-ID: <364A810E.1B4E earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:32:46 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Britz: Bibliography changes  11.11.98
Content-Type: message/news
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"NFazL.0.x_3.60eIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24426
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Path: nntp.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.daimi.au.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz
From: britz <britz kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography changes
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:07:18 +0100
Organization: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science (DAIMI)
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9811110954540.11360-100000 kemi.aau.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: xinwen.daimi.au.dk 910775237 20124 255.255.255.255 (11 Nov 1998 09:07:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news daimi.au.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Nov 1998 09:07:17 GMT
Xref: nntp.earthlink.net sci.physics.fusion:24682

A few weeks ago, upon a suggestion by Jim Carr, I added a group of files,
that break up the big one into a number of subfiles, by year of publication.

I just added a paper by Nagel to the biblio, a review paper. Nagel got
me a bit worried because he did a simple CAS search and the number of
papers it gave him, using the keywords "cold fusion" was a lot higher
than my total (1691 against 1115, in June 1997). The discrepancy can't
be explained by the 200+ patents. So I am going to check this and find
out what is going on. Most of the papers in my biblio, I got from Chem.
Abstr., so the numbers ought to be the same.

Anyway, to help me do the comparison, I have added yet another group
of files: the yearly files stripped down to the "brief" form, i.e. no
abstract, just authors, title, source. These are web-selectable, right
next to the full files. I did these mainly for my own study but thought
that others might want such brief lists. I will now compare my lists
with those of CAS, year by year. I have already done 1989. Strangely,
I have 244, CAS has only 131, of which some are ring-ins, like papers
on heavy elements etc. I guess the rest will appear in the 1990 CAS list.
I did find 3 papers I had missed (two Koreans, one Finnish). This seems
to be a worthwhile exercise. I'll report back when I know more. This is
a low-burner thing.

-- Dieter Britz.    Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 22:42:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA21223;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:41:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:41:07 -0800
Message-ID: <364A8405.7E45 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:45:25 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"yPDdS2.0.WB5.3CeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24427
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:   Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.9.98
  Date:    Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:28:29 -0500 (EST)
  From:    "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

> >The binding
> >energy forces a functional form at great distance from
> >the well to be the familiar exponential decay -- not
> >a Bloch function.
>
> It is still true that exponential fall-off occurs in each unit cell.
> However, this fall-off repeats itself.  The reason for this is because
> recoil of the solid is allowed at every point, on all timescales.  Then,
> it is NEVER POSSIBLE on any timescale to determine in which unit cell of
> the solid the nucleus is located.  For this reason, the exponential
> fall-off occurs in all unit cells at each periodically equivalent
> location.  The mechanism that is responsible for the recoil is
> electromagnetic in nature (and it is here that separability between
> electromagnetic and nuclear interactions is violated).  This is a "zero
> energy" transfer process because the periodic lattice may absorb and
> transmit momentum without changing its energy.
>
> >
> >You insist that the periodic potential arises from the
> >"self interaction" but I point out that there are other,
> >stronger interactions that must be considered once you
> >get as far from r=0 as one unit cell spacing.
>
> The dominant processes at T=0 that I have alluded to do not change the
> energy of the system.  The other processes raise the energy of the
> system. These are not mere assertions.  They are based on the idea that
> the solid may spontaneously recoil.  Your view simply ignores this
> possibility.  The term recoil is a simplified expression for a more
> general concept: boundaries of the solid may change without altering the
> energy or periodic order within the solid;  equivalently, the "location"
> of the nucleus (and nucleons) becomes completely indeterminate.
>
> >The fact that you assume something about those other interactions
> >does not make it the right thing to do.

Scott, let's go through the simple excercise of counting all the
nucleons in a unit cell with a mind toward estimating what may
contribute to the lattice potential for strong interactions.  I see
three contributions to be considered: (1) the 105 nucleons in a Pd
nucleus (2) the 2 nucleons in the deuteron bound to the lattice and (3)
the estimated 10^-5 nucleons in the ion-band deuterons.  Off hand, I
would say the largest contribution to a strong interaction potential at
distances comparable to the lattice spacing will come from item (1), and
we can chuck item (3) as being SEVEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller.

What I am suggesting that before you can get to a consideration of the
"self-interaction term" in the potential for the separation coordinate
you must first shut down something that is clearly more significant.
How is that done?

> These are not what are involved in a T=0, periodically ordered system.
> What is foreign to you is the concept of a T=0, ordered solid.
>
> >Of course, if you make all sorts of idealizations you
> >can preserve whatever you want, but so what?
>
> The T=0 behavior of an ordered solid is the key starting point for much
> of what is understood about solid state physics at room temperature.
> The perturbations of this idealization are used to explain finite
> temperature effects, in particular.  So, you are simply wrong to suggest
> that this idealization has little relevance.

Whether this idealization has relevance depends on what aspects of the
systems behavior we are considering, does it not?  Electron conductivity
and superconductivity and a host of other phenomena may well demonstrate
just the sorts of effects that are properly described by Bloch wave
functions and all the rest.  That does not mean that we have to accept
this same explaination for absolutely everything else you can dream up.
In particular, I still have not seen you address the question of what
effect nuclear binding will have on the wave function for the separation
coordinate of the deuteron. If you can unglue the ion-band deuterons why
don't you unglue absolutely everything in the lattice?  The mere fact
that we refer to this nuclear matter as being "deuterons" is a direct
reflection, I should think, of the fact that we consider them to be
bound.  Again I repeat that bound systems are not well described by
Bloch wave functions.

You said you did some sort of selfconsistant energy minimization to show
that Bloch wave functions are appropriate.  I don't believe you!  As I
noted, the strong-interaction part of the potential involves something
like 108 bodies per unit cell.  I know what nuclear mater calculations
look like, so I am not convinced you have solved this problem.

> Nature does define ground states that have particular rules.  If it can
> be shown that the rules of an assumed ground state (and fluctuations
> about the ground state) conform to observation, then the model of the
> rules has some relevance.  The point is that the ground state can have
> rules that uniquely preserve the conditions of the ground state.  When
> this holds, the ground state becomes stable with respect to certain
> forms of fluctuation.  The significance of this is that if Nature
> prepares the system in such a way that the only forms of fluctuation
> that are present preserve the ground state, then the ground state
> becomes stable.  If the ground state is sufficiently stable,
> interactions can occur.
>
> >Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
> >justify saying that everything has to remain in its
> >ground state because it's at T=0.  Unless you have
> >some infinite heat sink hidden in the lattice there is
> >nothing to keep it at T=0 if there is an energy source
> >present.
>
> The question of how well the T=0 limit applies is a function of crystal
> size, loading and energy gap.

I think we know something about how well your limit applies to the real
problem.  The deuteron lattice is totally disordered with respect to the
separation coordinate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.  You
have not given us, for example, even an estimate of the energy
differences between between the various nuclear orientations.  You have
not made reference to any observed phenomena that would reflect nuclear
ordering in this, or any other, lattice. What you are talking about, in
general, are the phenomena that are associated with conduction electrons
in a lattice. Specifically there are conduction electrons only because
levels below the band gap are fully occupied.  There simply is nothing
analogous to this condition for the separation coordinate and the strong
interaction potential. In essence, you are insisting that a virtual
neutron can spread throughout the lattice as a free particle, but that
it will not interact with any other nucleons present in that lattice.  
I would further note that many of the properties of conduction electrons
require the very long range of the coloumb interaction potential.  A
change in the radial dependence of the interaction potential to
something more appropriate for the strong interaction can make all this
disappear in a puff of smoke.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 22:53:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA24622;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:52:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:52:32 -0800
Message-ID: <364A86B2.5C83 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:56:50 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Hansen: Storms: CF debate, Shanahan artifact  11.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Psuoi.0.a06.mMeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24428
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Storms: Blue: CF debate 11.10.98 -Reply
  Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:24:41 -0700
  From:   "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Storms makes the following statement-

"I am saying that the environment is not "very ordinary".  That is the
essential issue.  The environment is very unusual and the likes of it
are not seen in normal experience.  We must think of a material that is
hard to make and has several unusual properties, not the least of which
that it can assist the occurrence of several nuclear reactions. In
addition, such materials can occur in living systems. To make matters
worse, these unusual regions only occur as isolated, small regions so
that the apparent, average properties of the material remains normal.
Any hope of understanding the effect requires we examine the nature of
these small regions. Any discussion of the average properties is a waste
of time."

This sounds a lot like bad science fiction. How did we get from
palladium hydride to living systems? What living systems? What evidence?
This is the kind of thing that makes current cold fusion proponents
sound as nutty as a bunch of Planter's peanuts.  Lee Hansen

Subject:  Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.10.98 -Reply
  Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:36:29 -0700
  From:   "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

I applaud Shanahan's comments. One of the principles of careful
calorimetry is that the calibration must mimic as close as possible the
actual measurement.   Lee Hansen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 23:07:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28493;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:04:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:04:51 -0800
Message-ID: <364A899D.2D2F earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:09:17 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Shanahan: recombination artifact  11.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0hSnx.0.5z6.JYeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24429
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.10.98
  Date:  Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:34:57 -0500 (EST)
  From: "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> One key thing I have picked up in my study of CF calorimetry is the
> continuing warnings about non-homogeneous conditions inside the cell
> leading to potential errors.  It seems to me that the closed cell is
> clearly non-homogeneous with respect to heat source distribution.
> Specifically, a significant fraction of the internal heat in the cell is
> generated at the recombiner.  Furthermore, I have observed that the heat
> capturing surfaces of the calorimeter are usually biased towards the
> liquid region, especially since it is difficult to eliminate heat flow
> out of the penetrations I mentioned before.  Without very careful
> design, the gas space of the cell may not have much heat transfer area
> for capturing the evolved heat.  Thus I suspect that the heat captured
> by the calorimeter is biased towards heat produced in the liquid.  In
> the steady state, non-CF condition, this bias is calibrated out.

I think Kirk is touching on a very key point concerning isoperibolic
calorimetry, that it depends on a host of implicit assumptions regarding
the details of operating conditions.  While those assumptions may indeed
apply to the calibration conditions, it is still quite possible that
actual experimental conditions deviate in ways that may result in
significant systematic errors.

Clearly the heat flux leaving the calorimeter is a function of the
temperature differential across EVERY POINT on the defined thermal
boundary, while the measurements that are actually made seldom involve,
in truth, any points on the thermal boundary.  Hence it is that
homogeneity of the temperatures on both sides of the boundary become a
significant issue for the determination of calibration and precision of
the instrument.

The problems, however, do not stop with the spatial dependences of the
temperatures.  The time dependence of the temperatures must also be
considered more carefully than generally seems to be the case.  Few
people are aware that the time derivatives of the bath temperature must
also be considered in a determination of the heat flux, for example.

I have introduced to this discussion the question of the "noise level"
for the measurements and noted that the claimed CANR successes
frequently appear to occur for periods when the experiment has gotten
more "noisey."  That is to say, if there is some problem being
introduced by a lack of spatial or temporal homogeneity, it would show
up in precisely the same time frame as the "effect."

You may note that whenever the question of "noise" in the measurements
is raised Ed Storms replies with a mention of the averaging which is
applied to the raw data.  I fear this may indicate that he has fallen
into one of those common traps that may trip up an experimentalist. 
Noisey data is not attractive to the eye.  The noise may actually
indicate that the precision of the measurements is less than what is
desired.  It is understandably tempting, therefore, to reduce the noise
level by averaging data before presenting them.

However, one must recognize that this smoothing out of the data is
merely cosmetic.  It makes things look better without actually
addressing the consequences of having these highly variable data.
Information, however, is being lost by the averaging process such that
we cannot tell just how bad things get during periods in which the
"effect" appears.

I would next like to take the question of variability down to the level
of actual physical conditions that are presumed to induce CANR.  There
is always some implicit and unavoidable averaging in every measurement.
In this case the CANR effect, if there is one, is being averaged over
the physical extent of the cathode.  As I noted, and Ed Storms agrees,
it is clear that the condition of full volumetric loading of the cathode
with deuterium is achieved on a much shorter time scale and at lower
electrolysis current that is required for the appearance of a CANR
effect.

When I ask about this, the reply was that it is now presumed that
conditions on the surface of the cathode play a key role in the effect.
It is interesting to note that this moves the effect from something that
Storms documents, i.e. volume loading, to something that goes largely
unobserved and undocumented.  We really don't know what, if anything,
happens to the surface of the cathode to result in the onset of the
effect.

What, I think, is likely true about surface conditions is that they are
highly variable.  What observations can be made on an operating cathode
seem to confirm that bubble formation, for example, occurs at specific
locations.  This variability is yet another form of "noise" that we
would expect to influence the experimental outcome were it not for
the "averaging" that results from measuring only total heat output
for the entire sample.

I mention this because I am troubled by the concept of there being
an absolute, sharp current threshold that must be exceeded to trigger
the effect.  My thinking is that there likely is a spatial variation
of the current density across the surface of the cathode.  In fact
that variability may be quite large.  Just suppose that 90% of the
current is concentrated at 10% of the surface area.  That should,
I would think, fuzz out any observed dependence on total current.
That is to say, it should be possible to get a little bit of
CANR going at lower total current because there may well be a
concentration of that current at a small portion of the cathode
surface.

That is, perhaps, an illustration of why it is important to keep
in mind the likely effects of averaging on any measurement.  If
the measurement is very noisey, these effects may possibly become
more significant than when the experimental system is quiet and
operates smoothly.  A calibration that is done at constant power
need not be replicated with great precision by a heat source
that is "noisey."  By the way there certainly is a time lag
between any change in the power level and the temperature signals
that are supposed to track that change.  The calorimeter is
assumed to correctly average over such tracking errors, but does
it?

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 23:20:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31069;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:49 -0800
Message-Id: <199811120719.BAA28043 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 02:17:58 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
Resent-Message-ID: <"p2f9D.0.Nb7.LmeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24431
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Was just looking at some of the "debris" in these photos:
>
>ftp://lasco6.nascom.nasa.gov/pub/lasco/status/LASCO_Debris_List
>
>A particularly interesting one is the one listed as
>
>06-Jun-1996     00:16           C3      Unusual shape (inverted V)

***{The "inverted V" is likely a portion of the field of the photo that is
masked off by some structure on the SOHO satellite itself. The
debris--probably cometary debris--is clearly present streaming from the
lower left toward the blanked out solar disc in the center. The highly
reflective object on the left, on the other hand, is clearly the
"suncruiser." While this black and white photo is low resolution, it was
taken before the malfunction that took SOHO offline. What I would like to
see is a low-res photo taken by SOHO after coming back online. So far, I
haven't seen any. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>A low res image is:
>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960606_c3.gif
>
>High res image (although it is so large that the low res is OK)
>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960606c3.gif
>
>This doesn't look like "debris" to me because of its very
>smooth edges.  In fact I think it looks rather like the
>trajectory of a large object which takes evasive action
>to avoid the sun!  If it is a trajectory, it is certainly
>behaving in an anti-gravitational manner!

***{The explanation for the unexposed region of film in the shape of an
inverted V seems fairly obvious. (See above.) But can you explain the so
called "suncruiser?" It doesn't look like a naturally occurring object to
me. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Anyone know what the exposure time is for these photos?
>
>There is also a "suncruiser" looking thing on the left in
>this photo, but it is pretty uninteresting compared to the
>trajectory.

***{You left off the smiley, which is just as well, since your
tongue-in-cheek comments aren't very funny. (I think you should work on
your comedy routine some more before you take it on the road.) --Mitchell
Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 23:20:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31048;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199811120719.BAA28046 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 02:17:59 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Commentary from the SETI List
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA31031
Resent-Message-ID: <"n-LoH.0.2b7.KmeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24430
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{Here is an interesting post that I pulled off of the SETI list this
morning. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

***************************************************
Reply-To: "PHENOMENA" <phenomena nkm01.regiolicht.nl>
From: "PHENOMENA" <phenomena nkm01.regiolicht.nl>
To: <seti sni.net>
Subject: SETI More about the HOAX
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 04:05:53 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-seti lists.sni.net
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: dc7837e067e3c3e5e6ea94980f2c5207

SOURCE: http://www.lunaranomalies.com/update2.htm
Down Under Radio Astronomers Are Upside Down: Prove They're Just Horsing Around


RICHARD C. HOAGLAND
MICHAEL BARA

� 1998 THE ENTERPRISE MISSION


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

More data just keeps pouring in.

After sign off from the Art Bell show last night, TEM posted an image
showing the SETI data obtained
in Australia.The images came from the Australian Telescope Compact Array
(ATCA) and were posted by
Dr. Ray Norris, a principal investigator with the facility. While the paper
claimed to be a "case
closed" on the Dore affair, it was full of several major logical holes and
seemed to ignore their
own data graphs. The posting is obviously intended for political
consumption, aimed at the general
public who lack the training to spot the obvious inconsistencies.

It starts by linking Dore with the Effelsberg story, which is easily used
to discredit the Dore
data. It should be remembered that Dore at no time named the two
astronomers or the Observatory he
claimed were going to support him at the press conference.Those stories
came from the British press.
Norris then points out that the claim has been "ridiculed" by the SETI
community, partly because
Dore (who is not part of that community) did not follow established
protocol for reporting it. Dore
of course, evidently had good reason for not reporting it, he did not trust
the SETI community and
did not wish to be "ridiculed" before confirming his findings.

Setting aside for a moment the implications of a community of "scientists"
who would rather ridicule
a possible find in their chosen field than check it out, ATCA at least
pointed their telescope at EQ
Pegasi. After using a very narrow band instrument pointed at the star, they
came up with nothing.
When they switched to a mode with less sensitivity and a larger field of
view, they had a major hit
at 1451.8 MHz, which they promptly dismissed as "probably not related,"
because Dore's original
signal was reported as 1453.075 MHz and the signal was several degrees off
the star's position. The
logic of this conclusion is hard to absorb.



The signal, derisively described as "interference" by Norris, is a
megaphonic blast of biblical
proportions! It is unimaginable that a spike which is nearly twice the
amplitude of the background
noise can be mere interference.

The SETI model may be the problem. Evidently, the SETI guys assume that ET
will be sitting around
one night, listening on his ET version of a HAM radio, and catch a call
from us. They have decided
that what he will then do is send another signal back from his little cabin
in the ET woods, and
wait around for 22 light years or so for us to call him back.

Now, even if you ignore the fact that a radio telescope would probably be
the ET equivalent of an
8-track tape to any mildly advanced civilization, had it occurred to these
geniuses that ET might do
something else? Like get in his car and go have a look?

Assuming that any signal off a stellar source is "not related" is about as
smart as assuming that a
traffic light is not related to your car unless it is positioned directly
in front of you, not to
mention stop signs, which are way off to the side. Given the "probe model"
put forth by Hoagland on
Art Bell's show last Friday, it would seem only logical to check the
general vicinity, which they
did. But then to dismiss such an obvious hit as "Almost certainly ... a
terrestrial satellite" is
sheer stupidity. I mean, didn't it ever occur to these guys that ET might
have a car phone?

Norris goes on to argue that it must be a satellite signal because it is
modulating up and down. He
assumes that this due to a rotational period of the source object, which he
has decided is a
satellite. OK, which satellite? It is a fairly easy thing to check for a
terrestrial satellite in
the area, although it can take some time. But he hasn't apparently even
tried. Another problem is
that most satellites don't rotate unless they are committed to particle
research, and there are no
such bogey's in the sky at the moment.

Of course, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for the
observed modulation. It's
pinging.

The idea of an approaching probe sending out a navigational beacon is
evidently beyond the SETI
mindset. To dismiss the signal as a satellite simply because it is not on a
star and seems to be
dropping in frequency is overtly stupid. The fact is the signal has all the
characteristics that
SETI should logically be looking for, if in fact they are actually
interested in finding ET. It is
our suspicion here that they are not.

To make such arrogant assumptions and dismiss such compelling data is
criminal. If the target is
moving and decelerating, then we can expect that it will continue to drift
farther from the position
of EQ Pegasi and it's frequency will continue to drop. Further observations
are essential if we are
to determine where it is really coming from and what it really is.

To ascribe such behavior to gross incompetence is far fetched. This posting
seems calculated to
discourage anyone else from looking, as opposed to trying to determine the
nature of the signal. As
we stated yesterday, SETI must fall into one of two categories on this
issue, liars or idiots. At
the moment, they appear to be liars.

But, we know one thing more than we knew yesterday. The signal is real.
***************************************************






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 23:21:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31245;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:20:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:20:26 -0800
Message-ID: <364A8D40.671D earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:24:48 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms: CF debate  11.12.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CqnDU.0.2e7.wmeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24432
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 11.10.98
  Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:07:04 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> Let's not.  Rather than get into a discussion of details having little
> importance to the problem, I would rather summarize the main points:
>
> 1) Takashasi and many others detect very few neutrons associated with
> CANR.
> 2) Occasionally, when neutrons are detected, several researchers detect
> energies near 2.5 MeV  and, in Takashasi's case,  energies near 4 MeV.
> I agree, the 7 MeV signal is too small to be real.
> 3) The number of neutrons is too small to be associated with energy
> production. Therefore, the details of these studies are not important to
> CANR.
> 4) However, a consistent, very low-level emission is seen by many
> people, which raises a question about the source.  I do not want to
> address this question here.

Here Ed Storms wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I agree there is
little point in a discussion of the experimental difficulties of
measuring neutron energy spectra at extremely low rates provided, of
course, you don't seek to use such spectra to justify some hare-brained
scheme for multi-deuteron reactions.  Take Takashasi's nuclear physics
off the table, all of it.

> You have no way of knowing that the window leaks.  Just because you can
> imagine a window leaking does not make it so. A leak would have quickly
> turned the Ti smoke into TiO2 smoke which would have been easily seen.

I know about thin windows and vacuum leaks from experience.  However, I
believe there is even some mention of leaks in the paper.  One of the
difficulties with these measurements is that elevated temperatures are
somewhat incompatable with the maintenance of tight vacuum seals.

 > The helium is being "flushed out" is it?  Estimate the velocity of
the
> > gas stream and compare it to the diffusion speed for helium.  Helium
> > is so good at swimming upstream against a gas flow that some commercial
> > leak detectors depend on that for their operation!  As for "vacuum pump
> > oil" forming a helium-tight seal, don't bet the farm on that one
either.
> > Miles-Bush certainly did not handle the obvious problem of helium leaks
> > very well in their initial series  of measurements.  They proceeded
> > as if they were totally unaware of the potential problems.  For
example,
> > sending the control samples to Texas by air while the samples from
> > the electrolysis went by some form of surface transport (unspecified)
> > would, by itself, call the validity of the controls into question.
>
> All leak detectors I have ever used pump on the system or on a probe in
> order to suck helium into the device with the air stream.  Of course
> helium diffuses in static air, but an air flow is very successful in
> preventing counter diffusion. At some point Dick's arguments begin to
> look trivial and an act of desperation.

Ask your friendly, neighborhood Varian salesman for information on how
their helium leak detectors operate.  I am not calling on anything
trivial, nor am I desperate.  You just can't deal with the issues I
raise.

> > I am, at present, working my way through the reviews Ed sent me.  As
> > noted
> > above I find the Takahashi neutron data less than convincing evidence
> > for
> > much of anything, and the claimed rates are much too low to be useful
in
> > any interpretation of the CANR process claimed to produce watts of
> > power.
> > I don't understand why they are included in a review.
>
> The reason for including the Takashasi work in a review is because all
> physicists are interested in neutron production, and it is necessary to
> show an example of what has been measured. I state in the review that
> the work has little application to CANR because of the small signal.  If
> I left out such data, Dick would now be wanting to know why I ignored
> the neutron emission data just as he complains because I ignore the data
> in our discussions.  Dick, you are very hard to please.

OK, what the Takakashi data prove is that there is nothing akin to
nuclear fusion occuring, but we knew that years ago.

> > I find the analogy to the testing for HT superconductivity to be a bit
> > strained.  A determination of which materials showed the phenomena was,
> > of course, significant.  I don't see the same checking for differences
> > in materials as having played the same role in CANR investigations.
> > In fact the investigators have had great difficulty demonstrating
> > a robust effect in even a single material.  Then they must resort to
> > asserting that subtle, but recognized, differences between samples of
> > nominally the same material account for the failure to replicate
> > any results to a degree that goes beyond some general pattern.
>
> > > Yes, Dick is correct. But to see the patterns, you must first take
the
> > > trouble to examine the data as if it were free of error. Gradually,
as
> > > the pattern becomes more robust, some of the data outside of the
pattern
> > > can be examined for error to see if they are worthy of supporting a
new
> > > pattern. This is a very gray area requiring holding different levels
of
> > > opinion at the same time. Someone who thinks the phenomenon is
nonsense
> > > in the first place would naturally think all positive results are
caused
> > > by error, hence all patterns are the result of random variations.
This
> > > being the general view, it is very hard to use the available data to
> > > make a case.  Of course, this is why important discoveries are only
made
> > > by a few people - ones who have the mental tools to use this process.
> >
> > When it comes to seeing patterns in data, I seem to be better at it
than
> > are many of the CANR advocates.  It just may be that the patterns being
> > overlooked by them don't support their claims, but rather indicate that
> > something else is going on.  For example, the very first evidence for
> > excess heat published by McKubre has a signature that I saw as
> > indicative
> > of electrical cross talk between signals.  No one else saw the pattern!
> > Strange to say it was never replicated, an observation that is entirely
> > consistent with my hypotheses regarding the origins of the "effect."
> > As for thinking all positive results are caused by error, it is
> > certainly
> > appropriate to recognize that error may play a role in any observation.
> >
> > As for withholding judgement until the evidence becomes more robust,>
> > I could agree with Ed on this point if, in tracking the history of CANR
> > claims, we saw a pattern that "becomes more robust."  If McKubre had
> > actually gotten to something "robust" why would he inform Scott Little
> > that there is little point in attempting a replication?  If CETI and
> > Miley had gotten to something "robust" why did the kits they sold not
> > lead
> > to numerous replications?  If the electrolysis as practiced by Pons
> > and Fleischmann led to a "robust" result why can't we answer a simple
> > question regarding light vs. heavy water for the electrolyte?
> >
> > My point is that we are nolonger "up front" with these claims.  Many
> > early
> > results were rejected because that was the proper way to treat them.
> > Pons and Fleischmann's claims regarding neutron detection were clearly
> > faulty.  De Nino's claims were clearly faulty.  Yamaguchi's claims were
> > faulty.  Do I need to run through the entire sad list?  Some of the
> > data that Ed Storms still references are not correct.  Before there
> > can be the sort of evaluation of CANR that Ed Storms claims to desire
> > we have to get down to those results that may have merit.  As for
> > my rejection of claims on the basis of "very unlikely and generally
> > previously reduced errors", we are clearly dealing with something
> > that is "very unlikely."  It follows that unlikely error sources have
> > to be considered along with unlikely physical phenomena.  Until you
> > have something "robust" upon which to base your claims, I don't
> > see that my wild imaginings are further out of bounds than are
> > yours.
>
> Anyone with an imagination or any good lawyer can come up with an
> explanation for anything. All experimental results are faulty.  Saying
> this means nothing. When the phenomenon is subtle, the results are
> easily ignored.  The question is, "Should a responsible scientist reject
> such claims or should he explore the subtle features with the
> expectation of finding a new understanding"? Disappointment later is
> better than unwarranted rejection earlier.  If the debate boils down to
> whether Dick's explanations are more plausible than mine, then we will
> get nowhere.

There are two potential sins to be considered here.  I agree that it is
a mistake to be to quick to reject claims relating to newly observed
phenomena.  It is, however, also a mistake to expend great amounts of
time and resources chasing after something imaginary.  What is required
of us, I should think, is to exercise sound, proper, rational,
scientific judgement for the evaluation of all results in order to best
direct our future investigations toward realistic goals.  I have not
been saying that CANR investigations should not be undertaken.  I have
just been saying that calorimetry alone is not getting us anywhere.

                                                  At constant current,
> > > the voltage is free to change by any amount within the capability of
the
> > > power supply.  The problem is how fast can this change take place.
The
> > > output of the power supply has a capacitor which prevents rapid
changes
> > > in voltage. As a result, as the resistance of the cell changes, both
> > > voltage and current fluctuate, thereby causing the rapid voltage
changes
> > > to be damped. Both current and voltage are measured at the cell and
the
> > > values are averaged over many readings taken for about a minute.  As
a
> > > result, these random fluctuations are averaged and only a net drift
in
> > > value is seen. It has been suggested that these random fluctuations
are
> > > not properly measured, hence the applied power is in error. If
> > > calibration is done using electrolytic power, the suggested error is
> > > common to both the calibration and the condition of excess power.
> > > Therefore, it will cancel out when the difference is taken.
> > >
> > Oh my, what a can of worms is lurking in those words.  Electric power
> > is the instanaeous product of current and voltage.  Averaging the
> > voltage and the current over a period of the order of a minute before
> > forming that product is potentially a source of error.  Acknowledging
> > the fact that the power supply may not be capable of maintaining
> > constant current under a rapidly flucuating load is yet another
> > potential
> > source of error.  In the face of such possibilities it becomes even
more
> > important that calibrations be performed under conditions that match,
> > with arbitrary precision, the operating conditions of the experiment.
> > That, I fear, is an ideal that is extremely difficult to achieve.
>
> I did not say each was separately averaged over a minute.  The voltage
> and current are measured simultaneously, i.e. within 0.01 sec. In my
> present set up, a reading is taken every 0.1 sec and about 500 such
> readings are averaged. The product is the average power during this
> interval. This same procedure is used during calibration.  Different
> time intervals have been explored and there is very little difference
> except more points lower the random variations somewhat.

I still don't see from you a clear statement as to what is being
averaged?  My point is that you don't "read" power.  You have to
calculate it.  So I don't like that phrase: "a reading is taken every
0.1 sec and about 500 such readings are averaged."  If you are averaging
calculated power, say it that way.  While on the subject, have you
explored variations in the timing between a voltage measurement and
a current measurement within the entire group of measurements as well
as just changes to the total logging rate?

> > > Before Dick has a chance to raise this possibility, suppose the
amount
> > > of random fluctuation increases as the palladium becomes fully
loaded,
> > > i.e. when the supposed special condition forms. Further suppose, the
> > > error caused by these random fluctuations increases in such a way
that
> > > the measured applied power is smaller than the actual power.  The
result
> > > would be an apparent excess. Actually seen is a gradual increase (not
> > > decrease) in applied voltage (constant current) as loading increases.
In
> > > addition, we would have to believe that many different types of power
> > > supplies and data acquisition systems can suffer from this effect and
> > > that palladium is able to initiate this error regardless of its size
or
> > > shape, and then only when a critical composition was achieved. The
> > > question is, "How willing are you to accept this remote possibility
> > > instead of accepting the claims for excess energy"?
> >
> > I reread the above several times because, it seems, Ed Storms is making
> > my case for me!  What he is asserting, I suppose, is that given enough
> > different systems suffering from a variety of systematic errors the
> > pattern for CANR would be washed out by the experimental differences.
> > if there were not a real physical phenomena involved.  As I noted
> > long ago, that actually would be the case were it not for the "post
> > selection" of results.  The actual experimental average for all
> > excess heat measurements is essentially zero.
>
> I have no idea how Dick arrives at the pronouncement, "The actual
> experimental average for all excess heat measurements is essentially
> zero."  This is a classic example of assuming one's conclusions.  If one
> wished to nit pick, I could point out that people do not measure
> negative heats.  The values are either zero or positive within the
> random variation of the measurements. Therefore, any average of all
> measurements will always be positive.  However, this whole argument is
> completely irrelevant because the large values of excess power obtained
> by various workers do not fit the pattern expected for random errors.
> Why do we have to keep discussing this subject?  If a robust result is
> required, then we need to discuss something other than the
> Pons-Fleischmann part of CANR, or we need to end this discussion and
> wait for some presently ongoing studies to be published.
>
> >
> > If these results are as marginal as Ed and I now appear to agree the
> > best
> > thing for everyone is to take them off the table.  They should get no
> > further
> > consideration.  However, Ed can't quite let them go.  He wants to say
> > they
> > confirm something about his experiments.  Let me suggest that tying
> > good experiments to bad experiments cannot possibly strengthen the
> > Storms
> > position.

Finally I see Ed Storms agreeing with me that we should not get bogged
down in discussions of every old CANR measurement.  That's what I mean
when I suggest that much of this stuff should be taken off the table and
filed away.

> Temperature has little effect on the nucleus but it does alter the
> nature of the chemical environment. Therefore, temperature needs to be
> viewed as promoting the required conditions in the environment which,
> when achieved, allow nuclear interaction to occur.

Then you agree with me that "temperature" is not, in itself, a
controlling parameter for the determination of the outcome of a nuclear
reaction. That's all I meant when I suggested that fusion is fusion
regardless of the temperature.  It's the actual chemical environment
that must account for dramatic differences in reaction processes if your
notions are to prevail.

> This is the conventional model which does not work. I agree, the process
> can not involve d+d=4He as an isolated reaction.
>
> I think we are limited to four possibilities at the present time:
> 1. The process occurs between waves as the Chubbs propose,
> 2. The process occurs between 3 or 4 deuterons as Takahashi proposes,
> 3. The process is alpha emission after a metal-deuteron reaction, or
> 4. The process involves a hydrogen or deuterium nuclei which has been
> partially neutrallized by its electron, as proposed in several
> variations by Dufour, Mills and Kozima.

Let me address these from the bottom up.  With regard to (4) all that
does, it seems to me, is to alter the overall reaction rate, but it will
not dramatically change the reaction process that is initiated.  Thus
the fusion which results will look very much like muon-catalyzed
fusion.  As for (3) I have already indicated a willingness to explore
that sort of reaction process further, but we will still have to deal
with why it does not look like known reaction processes.  Now, if we
have taken Takahashi's "evidence" for 3 or 4 deuteron processes off the
table, we have no way to judge this claim except to consider what we
know about multi-body processes from all sorts of other studies.  That
is to say it is pretty obvious that reaction rates drop off dramatically
when more than two bodies get involved.

We are left only with (1), the Chubb theory.  It is simplistic to say
that this involves a "wave" picture.  I would suggest that all nuclear
reaction theories involve waves.  The question is whether Chubb's
presumed waves have any connection to reality.  If you had followed our
discourse you will have noted that Scott Chubb made the following grand
(but slightly absurd) assumption:

If we count the nuclear density in the system under consideration there
are roughly 105 nucleons in Pd for each unit cell and an added two
nucleons for the deuteron in its normal lattice site.  To this Chubb
adds roughly 10^-5 deuterons in the magical ion band state.  If I were
to write the lattice potential for the strong interaction I would have
three terms: one for the Pd, one for the normal deuterons, and one for
the ion-band deuterons.  The gignificance of each of these terms,
roughly speaking would be proportional to the number of nucleons
involved.  However, Scott Chubb, with no justification, has chosen to
consider only the term involving the ion band deuterons, something I
would place at an estimated seven orders of magnitude
down in significance.  I don't think you can do that.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 11 23:59:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA11189;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:58:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:58:57 -0800
Message-ID: <364A8F56.7E30 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:33:43 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact  11.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SI2kS1.0.lk2.0LfIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24433
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.10.98
      Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:57:09 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

> Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: Storms 1993 report 11.7.98
>   Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:25 -0400 (EDT)
>   From:    Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
>     To:    rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms:
> 
> One key thing I have picked up in my study of CF calorimetry is the
> continuing warnings about non-homogeneous conditions inside the cell
> leading to potential errors.  It seems to me that the closed cell is
> clearly non-homogeneous with respect to heat source distribution.
> Specifically, a significant fraction of the internal heat in the cell is
> generated at the recombiner.  Furthermore, I have observed that the heat
> capturing surfaces of the calorimeter are usually biased towards the
> liquid region, especially since it is difficult to eliminate heat flow
> out of the penetrations I mentioned before.  Without very careful
> design, the gas space of the cell may not have much heat transfer area
> for capturing the evolved heat.  Thus I suspect that the heat captured
> by the calorimeter is biased towards heat produced in the liquid.  In
> the steady state, non-CF condition, this bias is calibrated out.

Gradients within the cell turn out not to be a significant problem. 
Bubble mixing reduces gradients within the liquid to less than 0.2� and
the effect of this error is reduced when calibration is based on applied
electrolytic current. The amount of heat being produced at the
recombiner is 1.54*current, which is a small fraction of the power being
applied to the cell. This power is quickly communicated to the walls of
the cell by the residual D2.  On the other hand, flow calorimeters or
double-wall isoperibolic calorimeters are not affected by internal
gradients.  Both methods have detected excess energy.
 
> Now let's move to the situation where an excess heat signal has
> developed.  We all know that recombination can occur at the electrodes
> under certain conditions.  (We also know it doesn't always do so.)  Let
> me postulate that the root cause of the excess heat signal is a shift
> from recombination at the recombiner to the electrode. Now a fraction
> of the heat formerly being produced in the gas space is now being
> produced in the liquid, and the calorimeter easily detects this.  This
> produces the baseline shift associated with the excess heat signal.
> The calibration procedures usually use an immersed Joule heater which
> well simulates the heat being produced at the electrode, so I anticipate
> the excess signal is relatively well measured.  However the heat arising
> in the gas space is not so well accounted for.

Considerable experience has shown that the amount of recombination
occurring on the electrode is only important at very low currents.  At
high currents, where the excess is seen, essentially all gas leaves the
electrode without recombination.

> As you can see, this scenario varies from the standard one in that as
> opposed to assuming the excess heat signal arises from a true unknown
> new heat source, I postulate an internal redistribution of the base
> 'unity-performance' heat.  I also postulate a sensitivity problem in
> detecting heat produced at the recombiner, with a significant fraction
> of that heat not actually registering in the calorimeter.  This allows a
> minimal impact on the cell baseline when removing heat from the
> recombiner, but a more significant impact when that heat reappears in
> the liquid.

All the experience I have and I know others have, says this is not the
explanation.  Indeed, I have placed thermistors in the gas space and
found no significant temperature increase over the liquid. In addition,
I have studied the mixing problem in some detail using multiple
thermistors and mechanical stirring. When a problem exists, it is caused
by the stagnate layer of fluid on the inner surface of the cell.  The
thermal conductivity of this layer is sensitive to the amount of
convention within the cell. This effect will introduce errors when small
currents, hence few bubbles, are applied to an unstirred cell. This
problem does not apply to my work or to work using flow calorimeters. 

I should point out, that the cell I used at LANL contained a piece of Pt
which dipped into the fluid and to which the recombiner was attached. 
Thus, there was an easy path for recombiner heat to enter the fluid. In
my present cells, the recombiner is contained in a Pyrex tube which
allows the resulting fluid to carry heat back into the liquid. In
summary, the issue you have raised has been thought of and addressed. 

It is interesting that the skeptics focus on the trivial effect of
temperature gradients in their condemnation of the work (ala. Lewis) and
completely miss the important effect caused by the stagnate layer. This
is the problem we all have in evaluating the claims.  Insufficient work
has been done to answer important questions because the skeptics have
made funding impossible to obtain.

Thanks for your interest,
Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 04:20:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA30460;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 04:19:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 04:19:46 -0800
Message-ID: <027601be0e36$404f1520$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Feature - Anti-Electrolysis Developments In Wire EDM (http://www.mmsonline.com/
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:16:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE0DFB.8A052D20"
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: <"qjso62.0.oR7.Y9jIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24434
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_01BE0DFB.8A052D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) Electrolysis Technical Stuff 

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/099504.html

------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE0DFB.8A052D20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Feature - Anti-Electrolysis Developments In Wire EDM.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Feature - Anti-Electrolysis Developments In Wire EDM.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/099504.html
Modified=A0A655D8350EBE0175

------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE0DFB.8A052D20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 05:04:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA14999;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:03:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:03:10 -0800
Message-ID: <028501be0e3c$4e091fc0$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  World Locator for New Research (http://www.best.com/~worktree/f/20/004f.htm)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:53:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE0E00.D3AD6E60"
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: <"CnB4G1.0._f3.CojIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24435
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_0031_01BE0E00.D3AD6E60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


"GOALI/IUCRP: Rotary Ultrasonic Machining of Ceramic Materials"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
A project at : U of Ill Urbana-Champaign.
Research by: One P. Investigator, under an NSF award of 25+ months.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
 Summary & WorkPage Links:
.
FERREIRA. STRUCTURAL CERAMICS MATERIALS can be used in engines, =
electronics, tooling or other applications where high temperature =
performance, strength to weight ratios, and wear or corrosion resistance =
are important. Today the use of structural ceramics is limited, in part, =
because they are very difficult and costly to process into useful =
products. This project will provide a fundamental understanding of a new =
process called rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM), that promises to =
reduce the processing time, and hence cost, without imparting =
sub-surface damage that would limit the life and reliability of =
structural ceramic components.=20
.
RUM uses ultrasonic vibration normal to a surface that is being =
generated to enhance material removal by fracture, rather than by =
plastic deformation, in brittle hard materials. This project examines =
the fundamental material removal mechanisms in the RUM process, that =
will be used to design a first generation RUM machining system. There =
are also fundamental integration issues in the design of such a machine, =
for example, the use of adaptive control to maintain nominal normal =
pressure while machining. This fundamental understanding and =
experimental work on RUM has the potential to provide a cost effective =
way to process structural ceramics. This impact of this new knowledge =
will be longer life for mechanical components subjected . . .=20
OPTIONS (below):

Locate RELATED WORK . . . More on THIS Work . . . About WorkPage
endWP=20


------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE0E00.D3AD6E60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>WorkPage 20004f: World Locator for New =
Research</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.best.com/~worktree/f/20/004f.htm>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<H4><B>&quot;GOALI/IUCRP: Rotary Ultrasonic Machining of Ceramic=20
Materials&quot;</B></H4>
<HR>
A project at : <B>U of Ill Urbana-Champaign</B>.<BR>Research by: <B>One =
P.=20
Investigator, under an NSF award of 25+ months.
<HR>
 Summary &amp; <A href=3D"#z">WorkPage Links</A>:<BR>.<BR>FERREIRA. =
STRUCTURAL=20
CERAMICS MATERIALS can be used in engines, electronics, tooling or other =

applications where high temperature performance, strength to weight =
ratios, and=20
wear or corrosion resistance are important. Today the use of structural =
ceramics=20
is limited, in part, because they are very difficult and costly to =
process into=20
useful products. This project will provide a fundamental understanding =
of a new=20
process called rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM), that promises to =
reduce the=20
processing time, and hence cost, without imparting sub-surface damage =
that would=20
limit the life and reliability of structural ceramic components. =
<BR>.<BR>RUM=20
uses ultrasonic vibration normal to a surface that is being generated to =
enhance=20
material removal by fracture, rather than by plastic deformation, in =
brittle=20
hard materials. This project examines the fundamental material removal=20
mechanisms in the RUM process, that will be used to design a first =
generation=20
RUM machining system. There are also fundamental integration issues in =
the=20
design of such a machine, for example, the use of adaptive control to =
maintain=20
nominal normal pressure while machining. This fundamental understanding =
and=20
experimental work on RUM has the potential to provide a cost effective =
way to=20
process structural ceramics. This impact of this new knowledge will be =
longer=20
life for mechanical components subjected . . . <A name=3Dz>
<P><U>OPTIONS</U> (below):
<H5><A href=3D"../../ff/20/004f.htm">Locate RELATED WORK</A> . . . <A=20
href=3D"../../locate/f00420/ENG.htm">More on THIS Work</A> . . . <A=20
href=3D"../../wp.htm">About WorkPage</B></A></H5>
<P>endWP </P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE0E00.D3AD6E60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 05:26:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA22311;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:24:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:24:10 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: Mitchell Jones <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:22:44 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7620.2232.20026104 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199811102025.OAA16084 mail11.jump.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: Superconducting Antenna
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"LeGTc1.0.XS5.v5kIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24436
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 10-Nov-98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>***{I pulled the following article off of one of the SETI discussion
>>groups. It seems highly relevant here, due to the claimed anomalous
>>performance of the gadget which is being discussed. Of course, it may be a
>>hoax. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***


>Best 73, Joe Speroni, AH0A/7J1AAA
>Ex-Technical Adviser - TIARA
>1 April 1997

>This story has been reprinted and edited from the April 1985 issue of the
>Tokyo International Amateur Radio
>Association's (TIARA) newsletter. Permission is hereby granted to reprint
>all or any portion of the material, provided
>credit is given to both TIARA NEWS and the author - Joe Speroni,
>AH0A/7J1AAA.

Guess this couldn't wait 'til April ;^)
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 05:47:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA01585;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:46:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:46:32 -0800
Message-ID: <364AE6EF.5F16 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:47:27 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
References: <3.0.32.19981111230815.00b78350 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MAbwi3.0.hO.tQkIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24437
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
(snips)

> Is this guy hip or what?

I could only wade about 1 inch into the 10-foot depth of this page,
Keith, but it is indeed remarkable!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 05:57:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06564;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:55:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:55:37 -0800
Message-ID: <02a701be0e43$a3cbe940$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Operation Buster-Jangle, 1951, Nevada Proving Grounds (http://www.aracnet.com/
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:51:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02A4_01BE0E08.F7657020"
Resent-Message-ID: <"U5HyA3.0.Jc1.OZkIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24438
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_02A4_01BE0E08.F7657020
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Formerly, Area 51,  My Brother Al was one of the troops that witnessed
A-Bomb Test
Buster-Jangle before they send him to the Front Lines in Korea. :-)

http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/buster1.htm


------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01BE0E08.F7657020
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" Operation Buster-Jangle, 1951, Nevada Proving Grounds.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" Operation Buster-Jangle, 1951, Nevada Proving Grounds.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/buster1.htm
Modified=A094C1B7420EBE01BB

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01BE0E08.F7657020--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 06:12:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12434;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:11:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:11:07 -0800
Message-ID: <02c701be0e45$cf220c80$738f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: The Atomic Duty of Bill Bires (http://www.aracnet.com/~histgaz/atomi/bires/)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:01:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02C4_01BE0E0B.22BB9360"
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: <"FMYqa2.0.C23.xnkIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24439
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_02C4_01BE0E0B.22BB9360
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Area 51 Before Buster-Jangle, Al is in there someplace.

http://www.aracnet.com/~histgaz/atomi/bires/

------=_NextPart_000_02C4_01BE0E0B.22BB9360
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Atomic Duty of Bill Bires.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Atomic Duty of Bill Bires.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.aracnet.com/~histgaz/atomi/bires/
Modified=E07609BA440EBE012A

------=_NextPart_000_02C4_01BE0E0B.22BB9360--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 06:18:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15358;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:17:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:17:25 -0800
Message-Id: <199811121416.IAA04530 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:15:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Was Paul Dore's Denial Made Under Duress?
Resent-Message-ID: <"KsSxC3.0.ul3.rtkIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24440
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{As you probably recall, I suggested several days ago that Paul Dore
might have been forced, by threats from NSA goons, to retract his claimed
SETI hit. Now hard evidence has emerged which supports that supposition.
Here, originally from David Dubowski (deepseeker hotmail.com), is something
I pulled off of the Art Bell website (www.artbell.com) this morning:

              HOW TO FIND THE INFORMATION YOURSELF:

              To get the list of all the posts of seticontact, including
the very first posting of the
              geocities Canaveral/Hall website, go to dejanews.com, click
on "POWER
              SEARCH", enter 128.121.100.12 exactly, and then click the
"find" button. It will
              then return only those articles with that header. Click on
articles to read, and if
              desired, click on "More Headers" to see the numerical header,
which will appear in
              all the articles.

              To get the list of all of Paul Dore's posts, again go to
dejanews.com, click on
              powersearch, enter 158.152.17.51 exactly and then click the
"find" button. It will
              then return only those articles with that header. Click on
articles to read, and if
              desired, click on "More Headers" to see the numerical header,
which will appear in
              all the articles.

              The first message that links Paul Dore to seticontact can be
found in the list of articles
              returned for 158.152.17.51 It was dated 98/11/07, author name
"impersonated",
              subject "Impersonation on the Internet", posted to
alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue It contains
              BOTH the Paul Dore header 158.152.17.51 AND the
seticontact my-dejanews.com
              return email address. The subsequent postings by
"impersonated" all show this
              linkage as of this writing.

What the above seems to indicate is that Paul Dore is, in fact, the source
of the original series of messages claiming a SETI hit, as I suspected, and
the implication appears to be that his later claim to know nothing about
the source of the material was a lie, and was probably made under duress.

Later, slaves.

--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 08:50:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06216;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:48:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:48:10 -0800
Message-ID: <364A9F78.B1512A21 postoffice.pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:42:33 +0000
From: Frank Chilton <fchltn pacbell.net>
Reply-To: fchltn pacbell.net
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-PBI-NC404  (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Internet Transmitted Humor [Off Topic?]
References: <19981112051643.16884.rocketmail send102.yahoomail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9qxqQ2.0.0X1.95nIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24441
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>
> Element Name: WOMAN
>
> Symbol:  WO
>
> Atomic Weight: (don't even go there!)
>
> Physical Properties:  Generally round in form.  Boils at nothing and may
> freeze any time.  Melts whenever treated properly. Very bitter if not
> used well.
>
> Chemical properties:  Very active. Highly unstable. Possesses strong
> affinity to gold, silver, platinum, and precious stones.  Violent when
> left alone. Able to absorb great amounts of exotic food. Turns slightly
> green when placed next to a better specimen.
>
> Usage:  Highly ornamental. An extremely good catalyst for dispersion of
> wealth. Probably the most powerful income reducing agent known.
>
> Caution: Highly explosive in inexperienced hands.
>
>        -------------------------------
>
> Element Name:  MAN
>
> Symbol:  XY
>
> Atomic Weight: (180 +- 50)
>
> Physical properties:  Solid at room temperature, but gets bent out of
> shape  easily.  Fairly dense and sometimes flaky. Difficult to find a
> pure sample. Due to rust, aging samples are unable to conduct electricity
> as easily as young samples.
>
> Chemical properties:  Attempts to bond with WO any chance it can get.
> Also tends to form strong bonds with itself.  Becomes explosive when
> mixed with Kd  (Element: Child) for prolonged period of time. Neutralize
> by saturating with  alcohol.
>
> Usage: None known. Possibly good methane source. Good samples are able to
> produce large quantities on command.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 09:16:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18524;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:13:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:13:45 -0800
Message-ID: <364B1F4C.4B17 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:47:57 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray.Norris atnf.csiro.au
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Commentary from the SETI List]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------33C543BD29AF"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zwNWc2.0.GX4.8TnIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24442
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.

--------------33C543BD29AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Dr. Norris,

Attached is Mitchell Jones' repost to the Vortex listserver forum of
Richard Hoagland's comments about your investigation of the reported
SETI acquisition by "Paul Dore".

Any comments you have in regard to these criticisms would be
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jim Ostrowski

--------------33C543BD29AF
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48] by ca-ois.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id ACC9C4220162; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:22:49 PST
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31048;
	Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:19:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199811120719.BAA28046 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 02:17:59 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Commentary from the SETI List
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA31031
Resent-Message-ID: <"n-LoH.0.2b7.KmeIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24430
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA31048

***{Here is an interesting post that I pulled off of the SETI list this
morning. Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

***************************************************
Reply-To: "PHENOMENA" <phenomena nkm01.regiolicht.nl>
From: "PHENOMENA" <phenomena nkm01.regiolicht.nl>
To: <seti sni.net>
Subject: SETI More about the HOAX
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 04:05:53 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-seti lists.sni.net
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: dc7837e067e3c3e5e6ea94980f2c5207

SOURCE: http://www.lunaranomalies.com/update2.htm
Down Under Radio Astronomers Are Upside Down: Prove They're Just Horsing =
Around


RICHARD C. HOAGLAND
MICHAEL BARA

=A9 1998 THE ENTERPRISE MISSION


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

More data just keeps pouring in.

After sign off from the Art Bell show last night, TEM posted an image
showing the SETI data obtained
in Australia.The images came from the Australian Telescope Compact Array
(ATCA) and were posted by
Dr. Ray Norris, a principal investigator with the facility. While the pap=
er
claimed to be a "case
closed" on the Dore affair, it was full of several major logical holes an=
d
seemed to ignore their
own data graphs. The posting is obviously intended for political
consumption, aimed at the general
public who lack the training to spot the obvious inconsistencies.

It starts by linking Dore with the Effelsberg story, which is easily used
to discredit the Dore
data. It should be remembered that Dore at no time named the two
astronomers or the Observatory he
claimed were going to support him at the press conference.Those stories
came from the British press.
Norris then points out that the claim has been "ridiculed" by the SETI
community, partly because
Dore (who is not part of that community) did not follow established
protocol for reporting it. Dore
of course, evidently had good reason for not reporting it, he did not tru=
st
the SETI community and
did not wish to be "ridiculed" before confirming his findings.

Setting aside for a moment the implications of a community of "scientists=
"
who would rather ridicule
a possible find in their chosen field than check it out, ATCA at least
pointed their telescope at EQ
Pegasi. After using a very narrow band instrument pointed at the star, th=
ey
came up with nothing.
When they switched to a mode with less sensitivity and a larger field of
view, they had a major hit
at 1451.8 MHz, which they promptly dismissed as "probably not related,"
because Dore's original
signal was reported as 1453.075 MHz and the signal was several degrees of=
f
the star's position. The
logic of this conclusion is hard to absorb.



The signal, derisively described as "interference" by Norris, is a
megaphonic blast of biblical
proportions! It is unimaginable that a spike which is nearly twice the
amplitude of the background
noise can be mere interference.

The SETI model may be the problem. Evidently, the SETI guys assume that E=
T
will be sitting around
one night, listening on his ET version of a HAM radio, and catch a call
from us. They have decided
that what he will then do is send another signal back from his little cab=
in
in the ET woods, and
wait around for 22 light years or so for us to call him back.

Now, even if you ignore the fact that a radio telescope would probably be
the ET equivalent of an
8-track tape to any mildly advanced civilization, had it occurred to thes=
e
geniuses that ET might do
something else? Like get in his car and go have a look?

Assuming that any signal off a stellar source is "not related" is about a=
s
smart as assuming that a
traffic light is not related to your car unless it is positioned directly
in front of you, not to
mention stop signs, which are way off to the side. Given the "probe model=
"
put forth by Hoagland on
Art Bell's show last Friday, it would seem only logical to check the
general vicinity, which they
did. But then to dismiss such an obvious hit as "Almost certainly ... a
terrestrial satellite" is
sheer stupidity. I mean, didn't it ever occur to these guys that ET might
have a car phone?

Norris goes on to argue that it must be a satellite signal because it is
modulating up and down. He
assumes that this due to a rotational period of the source object, which =
he
has decided is a
satellite. OK, which satellite? It is a fairly easy thing to check for a
terrestrial satellite in
the area, although it can take some time. But he hasn't apparently even
tried. Another problem is
that most satellites don't rotate unless they are committed to particle
research, and there are no
such bogey's in the sky at the moment.

Of course, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for the
observed modulation. It's
pinging.

The idea of an approaching probe sending out a navigational beacon is
evidently beyond the SETI
mindset. To dismiss the signal as a satellite simply because it is not on=
 a
star and seems to be
dropping in frequency is overtly stupid. The fact is the signal has all t=
he
characteristics that
SETI should logically be looking for, if in fact they are actually
interested in finding ET. It is
our suspicion here that they are not.

To make such arrogant assumptions and dismiss such compelling data is
criminal. If the target is
moving and decelerating, then we can expect that it will continue to drif=
t
farther from the position
of EQ Pegasi and it's frequency will continue to drop. Further observatio=
ns
are essential if we are
to determine where it is really coming from and what it really is.

To ascribe such behavior to gross incompetence is far fetched. This posti=
ng
seems calculated to
discourage anyone else from looking, as opposed to trying to determine th=
e
nature of the signal. As
we stated yesterday, SETI must fall into one of two categories on this
issue, liars or idiots. At
the moment, they appear to be liars.

But, we know one thing more than we knew yesterday. The signal is real.
***************************************************








--------------33C543BD29AF--



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 13:24:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03348;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:23:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:23:20 -0800
Message-ID: <364B6D17.79ACD2A3 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:19:51 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Superluminal signalling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PX2hN1.0.Eq.77rIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24443
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's one for you guys: (Jim O.: help me out here;)

It is said that no signal can exceed the speed of light. Well, lets
assume for a minute that I figure out some way of building a device
which can send a signal (non-monotonous, but changing intelligibly)
faster than light. The device works this way: A normal transmitter sends
a radio beam to a detector, and the transit time is measured. The
special device is placed next to the normal transmitter, and sends a
signal to the detector. The signal velocity (time it takes the signal to
get from A to B) is measured to be 5c. Nevertheless, the front velocity
is always equal to c. Looking at this from a relativistic standpoint, I
could send a signal back in time, at least back to the point when the
front velocity pulse hit the detector. This still implies that a paradox
can be generated. Nevertheless, many say that without a front velocity
>C, the signal velocity is meaningless. Whats going on here???

I don't know about you, but I am sick of "Gedanken experiments." I say,
if someone sends "Hi-ho, hi-ho" to a station on Mars, and it takes T<D/C
to get there, the signal is FTL, Gedanken notwithstanding.

Thoughts?
Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 13:39:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09393;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:38:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:38:33 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b270fc09fa5d [12.64.37.141]>
In-Reply-To: <364AE6EF.5F16 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.32.19981111230815.00b78350 cnct.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:58:58 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA09368
Resent-Message-ID: <"TBeTk.0.cI2.PLrIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24444
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  I could only wade about 1 inch into the 10-foot depth
   >  of this page, Keith, but it is indeed remarkable!

Me too. I got as far as the Frisbee� in the swimming pool, but that was
about it.  I'll have to try dying the invisible thread and cutting it with
a piece of sheet. Sounds like fun.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 16:14:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA15766;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:11:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:11:45 -0800
Message-ID: <364B7727.27AE interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:02:47 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: (Off topic, sort of)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pdjGx.0.As3.1btIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24445
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

At the risk of making Jim O. mad, - and if I do, he deserves it for
getting me addicted to this old DOS software! - I thought I would
mention an old DOS analog circuit simulator program that fits into
about 342 k of hard drive memory.  You electronic types on the list are
probably already familiar with the trademark "Micro-cap...".  Well, the
DOS version of "Micro-cap II" is what I have in mind.

Now, with this program you can draw complex ANALOG electronic circuits
and run "spice-based" analysis on the circuits.  Perhaps more valuable
for Vortexians, The circuit files are easily e-mailed to and read by
anyone who has the program on their system.  I'm thinking intra-list
communication here.  There follow some facts about this program:
	1. I understand that the makers of this software no longer
	   support this old version of the software.
	2. I tried to buy this software from a Canadian supplier but
	   missed it by this much - ()! - They no longer sell it.
	3. I just purchased a book from Amazon.com as follows:
		"Electronic Devices and Circuits Using MICRO-CAP II"
		by  R. H. Berube
		for 24 bucks + S&H
	   which contains a nice tutorial on how to use this old
	   program.
	4. I noticed that there is a 153 kB zip file containing this
	   program, located at the end of the following foreign-language
	   page:

     http://houston.feld.cvut.cz/personal/bores/st/htmt/htm/mc2.htm

If we all had this software, we could draw, e-mail, and read very
complex electrical and electronic ANALOG circuits for fun and education.
I suggest those of you who are interested try to buy the software if
you can find a source. :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 16:42:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29313;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:40:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:40:59 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981112194744.00c322a0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:47:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
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 QAA29285
Resent-Message-ID: <"SJH0D.0.w97.R0uIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24446
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:58 AM 11/12/98 -1000, you wrote:
>Frank -
>
>   >  I could only wade about 1 inch into the 10-foot depth
>   >  of this page, Keith, but it is indeed remarkable!
>
>Me too. I got as far as the Frisbee� in the swimming pool, but that was
>about it.  I'll have to try dying the invisible thread and cutting it with
>a piece of sheet. Sounds like fun.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no topologist. But if you look carefully
you'll find quite a few papers that address various topics in E&M and
the like in a reasonably understandable manner. This really makes
me want to dive into that field, the stuff he's talking about
(like torsion waves) are the theoretical kick in the ass that
generates those great new experiments. 

By the way, it's too cold here to even consider a pool; perhaps
Rick might be so kind as to try the frisbee trick... If only to
amuse (or terrify) your friends.

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 16:52:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01468;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:51:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:51:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130050.SAA22689 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:49:25 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: "Paul Dore" Admits to Lying
Resent-Message-ID: <"3eC1t2.0.lM.6AuIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24448
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Here is the latest on "Paul Dore" from www.artbell.com:

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:51:51 -0000
              From: paul dore (pdore web-computing.demon.co.uk)
              To: keithr primenet.com
              Subject: RE: Me as the hoaxer

              Dear Mr Rowland,

              I deliberately posted a message onto the newsgroup with the
return address as
              seticontact deja-news.com

              Reason : Because I knew it would aggravate the real hoaxer
and they would not resist
              publishing this fact to draw attention away from themselves.

              I also knew it would be tracable to my UK IP address so it
would be obvious to
              anyone with any sense that it did not come from the real hoaxer.

              Who shall I be next ? contact1450 geocites.com I think ??

Now that "Paul Dore" has apparently been proven to be the source of the
"SETI hit" posts, he continues to attempt to divert attention from the only
rational interpretation: that his SETI hit was real, the confirmations were
real, the claims of NSA  coercion were real, *and that he is now denying
the above because he is under duress*.

--Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 16:55:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01417;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:51:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:51:17 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:49:26 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ss1UW1.0.-L.4AuIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24447
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{This morning a set of really fantastic alien photos appeared at
http://www.artbell.com/images/reedali1.jpg and at
http://www.artbell.com/images/reedali2.jpg. I suggest you all check them
out, and copy them while you can. (If they are real, they may go the way of
the "Paul Dore" SETI hit posts on the geocities website. The reason: these
are far and away the best such photos that have ever been presented. The
creature shown appears to be of dinosaurian lineage, and probably evolved
on a planet where the reign of the dinosaurs was *not* cut short by an
asteroid impact. Result: mammals never became dominant there, and when
intelligent life arose, it sprang from the dinosaurs. Frankly, I am stunned
by these photos. Note, for example, the absence of ears, which is a
characteristic of reptiles and of birds, which are the only living
descendants of dinosaurs on this planet. Note also the greenish tint to the
skin. All in all, this photo literally screams of authenticity. If it is a
hoax, then, somehow, the most gifted creature effects guy on Earth just
happens to be a fellow with no connection to Hollywood, or else this is a
deliberate disinformation plant from NSA, intended to suck us all in and
then pull the rug from under our feet when the "hoax" is unmasked. But,
even in that case, I find myself wondering where they, despite their big
bucks, got a creature effects guy who is this good. Nobody in Hollywood has
come even close to this, so far. Indeed, the only thing that seems a bit
implausible is the fact that, in the "obelisk" photo, none of the shrubbery
in the foreground obscures any of the "obelisk"--which, if authentic, is
some sort of personal spacecraft analogous to the automobile. Of course,
the fact that none of the shrubbery intrudes between the camera and the
"obelisk" is not really surprising: it is a photographer's instinct to go
for the clear shot. Unfortunately, a shot in which the "obelisk" was
partially obscured by foliage would have been much harder to fake. The shot
given, on the other hand, could have been easily created with just about
any commercially available image manipulation program (e.g., "Photo Shop").
All in all, however, this set of photos makes a powerful statement. Either
they were concocted with the assistance of a creature effects guy who is
better than anyone Hollywood has to offer--not damn likely--or they are
totally authentic. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 17:19:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12927;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:18:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:18:15 -0800
Message-Id: <364B8B0C.6ED8C4BB verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:27:40 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Tool for spoting things on images using metrics
References: <199811120719.BAA28040 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UOFy41.0.v93.NZuIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24449
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi all,

I think this tool would be useful to share "hard to see" discoveries on NASA images :)

Necessity rose when I didn't able locate the "Sun cruiser" despite the all effort spend by Mitchell Jones.
 
1) Cut and paste this code (3 lines) into an editor (notepad)

2) Replace the "generic.gif" on the second line by the real image name, for example "eithe_soho13_big.gif".  Quotes should be included)

3) Save as "map.htm" in the directory of the NASA image is found. 


4) Call the map.htm.

Status line of the browser will display the cursor (finger) location in pixel coordinates as ".../pixel(x,y)?0,0. 

Note: Be sure the browser show the picture in its original size.

The html code (3 lines): 


<HTML><BODY>
<A HREF="pixel(x,y)"> <img src="generic.gif" ismap> </A>
</BODY></HTML>


Note: This code could be more simplified by striping first and the last lines. :)

Regards,
hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 17:47:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22808;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:43:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:43:42 -0800
Message-ID: <364B8FD5.5769 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:48:05 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Hansen: CF debate  11.12.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"h45wx3.0.Ha5.DxuIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24450
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Hansen: Storms: CF debate, Shanahan artifact 11.11.98
      Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:42:36 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Subject:  Storms: Blue: CF debate 11.10.98 -Reply
>   Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:24:41 -0700
>   From:   "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Reply by Storms to Hansen

> Storms makes the following statement-
> 
> "I am saying that the environment is not "very ordinary".  That is the
> essential issue.  The environment is very unusual and the likes of it
> are not seen in normal experience.  We must think of a material that is
> hard to make and has several unusual properties, not the least of which
> that it can assist the occurrence of several nuclear reactions. In
> addition, such materials can occur in living systems. To make matters
> worse, these unusual regions only occur as isolated, small regions so
> that the apparent, average properties of the material remains normal.
> Any hope of understanding the effect requires we examine the nature of
> these small regions. Any discussion of the average properties is a waste
> of time."
> 
> This sounds a lot like bad science fiction. How did we get from
> palladium hydride to living systems? What living systems? What evidence?
> This is the kind of thing that makes current cold fusion proponents
> sound as nutty as a bunch of Planter's peanuts.  Lee Hansen

PdD is not the only environment which supports nuclear reactions.  If
the various claims are accepted, apparently a wide range of materials
from other metal hydrides to superconducting oxides have been found to
be active.  Granted, living systems are a stretch, but no more so than
the basic idea. The question that keeps coming up is, "What do these
environments have in common?" At first one would answer, nothing. I
suggest it is worthwhile to look deeper.  After all, an example of a
similar problem is the much different properties shown by
low-temperature superconductors compared to high-temperature
superconductors.

> Subject:  Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.10.98 -Reply
>   Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:36:29 -0700
>   From:   "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> I applaud Shanahan's comments. One of the principles of careful
> calorimetry is that the calibration must mimic as close as possible the
> actual measurement.  

I could not agree more.      Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 18:01:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31033;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:59:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:59:54 -0800
Message-ID: <364B9362.7BBA earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:03:14 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Clauzon: 3 null CF reports by Pierre Clauzon 11.10.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------608171BE480"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tw4c-1.0.pa7.PAvIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24451
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.

--------------608171BE480
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/256/pclauzon/index.htm

--------------608171BE480
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="index.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="index.htm"
Content-Base: "http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/d
	elany/256/pclauzon/index.htm"

<BASE HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/256/pclauzon/index.htm">

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage Express 2.0">
<title>Researches on Cold Fusion by Pierre Clauzon</title>
</head>

<body background="images/sandston.gif">

<p align="center"><font size="4"><strong><u>RESEARCH OF ANOMALOUS
EXCESS HEAT </u></strong></font></p>

<p align="center"><font size="4"><strong><u>IN &quot; COLD FUSION
&quot; TYPE EXPERIMENTS</u></strong></font></p>

<p align="center"><strong>P.P.Clauzon , J.F.Fauvarque , F.Joubert
</strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong>Laboratoire d'Electrochimie
Industrielle du CNAM (Paris)</strong></p>

<p align="center"><em>Created on</em> 09-25-98 - <em>Last Update</em>
11-10-98</p>

<hr>

<p><strong><u>ABSTRACT</u></strong> : This paper gives a brief
description of three types of &quot;cold fusion&quot; experiments
done in our laboratory from January 1996 to July 1998:</p>

<p>1- &quot;Pons and Fleishmann&quot; type experiments ( P&amp;F)
at boiling temperature,</p>

<p>2- &quot;Patterson &quot; type experiment, in cooperation with
CEN Grenoble, in particular for beads supply,</p>

<p>3- A new type of glow discharge experiment, which allows us to
get protons</p>

<p>under about 400 volts potential.</p>

<p>Without prejudging the reality of the &quot;cold fusion&quot;
phenomenon, we must say that we have neither seen any anomalous
excess heat nor any kind of nuclear transmutations.</p>

<p align="center">___________________</p>

<p><strong>1 </strong><strong><u>P&amp;F TYPE EXPERIMENTS</u></strong><strong>:
</strong></p>

<p>-<em><strong><u>Introduction:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>These experiments were made at boiling temperature (about
100�C) for two reasons. First, we found in the litterature
(1-2), that the excess heat is larger at boiling. Second, we
avoid the accuracy problems related to temperature measurements.</p>

<p>-<em><strong><u>Experimental:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>We made an electrolysis of heavy water with 0.1M of LiOD. The
cathod was a small rod of Palladium (L about 2cm, D about 3mm).
Different sources of Palladium (Pd) were tested; also, different
alloys were tested. The anod was a Platinum wire of 50 �m
diameter.(cf Figure 1)</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig1.gif" border="1"
width="489" height="297"></p>

<p>The general scheme is given in Figure 2. A photographic view
(Figure 3) shows how the experiment was set up and in particular
how the heat insulation was fixed with a polystyren device.</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig2.gif" border="1"
width="538" height="750"></p>

<p align="center"><font size="3"><strong><img
src="images/fig3.jpg" border="1" width="306" height="453">Fig 3</strong></font></p>

<p>The experimental process was the following:</p>

<p>-deuterium loading during about 3 weeks (200 mA, 5.5 Volts
initially) </p>

<p>-then, progressive increase of the current intensity in 2 or 3
steps (few hours) up to get boiling.</p>

<p>-at boiling,we fixed the current intensity at a constant
level.</p>

<p>-we plotted versus time the potential in volts ( the potential
increases</p>

<p>slowly due to various deposits (SiO2 ect..) on the electrods)
and then the power in watts ( Pin = ( V - 1.54)* I ).</p>

<p>-we plotted versus time the weight of the condensed heavy
water.</p>

<p><em><strong>- </strong></em><em><strong><u>Results:</u></strong></em></p>

<p><em><strong><u><img src="images/fig4.gif" border="1"
width="718" height="551"></u></strong></em></p>

<p>Figure 4 gives the results obtained with various cathods. Two
straight lines are drawn: -the theoritical line without D2O
supply (for compensating the D2O consumption)</p>

<p>-the theoritical line with D2O supply (in that case, the D2O
level is set constant due to an external supply).One has to take
into account the heat used to bring the added D2O from about
20�C (room temperature) to about 100�C (boiling temperature).</p>

<p>One can see in Figure 4 that the beginning of boiling (at
about 7 watts) gives the level of the thermal leakage of this
experiment.As the temperatures remain constant, the thermal
leakage must remain constant and this is what we can see on the
experimental plotted line. The experimental results are plotted
on a line parallel to the theoritical line already mentionned,
and, in that case, the line with D2O supply. This case was in
fact the general case.</p>

<p>The dispersion of the spots around the mean line gives an idea
of the quite good accuracy of the measurements.</p>

<p>Any excess heat would have been seen by a positive deviation
to this mean line. As we can see, no deviation was observed.</p>

<p><strong><u>2-PATTERSON TYPE EXPERIMENT: </u></strong></p>

<p><strong>- </strong><em><strong><u>Experimental:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>In that case, the electrolysis concerns light water with
Li2SO4 as electrolyte.The cathod is there made of small beads (D
= 0.5mm) of plastic material coated with successive layers of
Nickel and Palladium (about 1 �m thickness for each layer). The
anod is in Platinum-coated Titanium.The inventor is known for his
works on catalysis with a lot of patents in this area. The beads
we used for were supplied by the CEA (CEN Grenoble).</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig5.gif" width="564"
height="824"></p>

<p>Figure 5 gives the scheme of the experiment with an
enlargement of the reactor cell itself. One can see the
&quot;Patterson&quot; beads, the Nickel grid used to hold the
beads with a Nickel rod , then resin beads which separate the
cathod from the anod which is a grid in Pt-coated Titanium.A
known electrolyte flow, the inlet and outlet temperatures of
which are measured by standard thermocouples (+ or - 0.05�C),
allow to calculate the power released in a tank, which is
maintained at a given temperature (between 25�C to 60�C). A
resistance, fixed in the loop between the two thermocouples,
makes possible a periodic calibration.</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig6.jpg" border="1"
width="310" height="458"> <strong>Fig6</strong></p>

<p>Figure 6 shows the experimental set-up. Thermal leaks are
reduced by insulating material, not shown there in the
photography. These leaks, anyway, are small because the operating
temperature is in general near to the room temperature.</p>

<p><strong>-</strong><em><strong><u>Results and discussion:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>The cross-section of the cathod (about 6cm2) does not allow us
to go higher than about 400mA for the direct electrolysis
current. For this value, the observed potential is about 7 volts.
The power released is then P = (7-1.48)*0.4=2.2 watts.</p>

<p>The flow range we used for goes between 0.3cm3 to 3cm3 per
second. So the nominal DeltaT goes from 1.76�C to 0.18�C.</p>

<p>The temperatures values are known at + or - 0.05�C at the
best. So the power itself is known at the best at about 10% (for
a flow of 0.3cm3 per sec.) and this by supposing a good flow
measurement. So, the excess heat must be large enough to be
meaningful (higher than 20 to 30%).</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig7.gif" border="1"
width="637" height="873"></p>

<p>Figure 7 gives a typical example of the measurements made.The
flow was O.31cm3 per sec. The difference between the DeltaT of
two different operating conditions: 50mA-3.5Volts and
400mA-6.3Volts gives: 1.4�C.</p>

<p>The measured value is 1.3 to 1.4�C.</p>

<p>The calibration for 2.5w gives a DeltaT worth of 1.8�C
instead of the calculated value of 2.5/(0.31*4.18) = 1.93�C.
i.e. a 1.93/1.8= 1.07 correction.This would lead the previous
experimental value from about 1.4�C to about 1.5�C.</p>

<p>As mentionned earlier, due to the temperatures measurements
uncertainties, this result do not allow us to quote for any
excess heat.</p>

<p>In conclusion, we do not have seen any real excess heat, large
enough and reproduceable.</p>

<p><strong><u>3-GLOW DISCHARGE EXPERIMENTS:</u></strong></p>

<p><em><strong>-</strong></em><em><strong><u>Introduction:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>We decided to see if we would be more lucky to get any
&quot;cold fusion&quot; event in gaseous media and in particular
with higher potential than those encountered in electrolysis
(about 500Volts instead of a few ten Volts). Our hope was that
perhaps protons of higher energy would be more efficient on the
surface of the studied cathods of Nickel or Palladium.</p>

<p><em><strong>-</strong></em><em><strong><u>Experimental:</u></strong></em></p>

<p><em><strong><u><img src="images/fig8.gif" border="1"
width="701" height="455"></u></strong></em></p>

<p>Figure 8 shows on scale 1 the scheme of our choosen device.
The glow discharge experiment is working under a very small
hydrogen pressure ( between 6 to 15 millibars) and in our case
for a potential between 300 to 500 Volts. We choose a direct
current of 0.3 to 0.8 Ampere in order to limit the maximum power
reached to about 300 watts. Our device and in particular the
seals would not undergone too high temperatures. Cooling is done
by a water flow inside the central tube. We do not mention the
two thermocouples at the inlet and outlet of the water tube but
they can be seen on the photography of the experimental device (
Figure 9 ). One can see the blue-shaded glow in hydrogen medium.
A plastic screen not shown in this Fig.9 allowed us to avoid the
eventual effects of UV rays.An hydrogen tank linked to the cell
gives an hydrogen storage to cope with an eventual hydrogen
consumption due to reactions between protons and the metallic
&quot;cathod&quot;. </p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig9.jpg" border="1"
width="654" height="438"> <strong>Fig 9</strong></p>

<p><strong>-</strong><em><strong><u>Results:</u></strong></em></p>

<p>The main problems to solve in this experiment is the tightness
of the seals of the pressure measurements, gas supply and void
taps. This is why we were not able to state definitively on an
eventual hydrogen consumption at the cathod surface.The cathod
was generally made of a copper tube (tight to hydrogen) coated
with the metal to be studied : Ni, Pd, or Ni-Pd alloys. A
stainless tube and a zircalloy tube ( alloy used in the cladding
of nuclear fuels) have been also studied.</p>

<p>Each experiment lasts about 2 to 3 weeks in order to be able
to see eventual transmutations inside or at the cathod surface. A
continuous follow-on of the inlet and outlet temperatures as well
as the water flow enables us to see eventual excess heat.</p>

<p>We give now thereafter the data concerning a typical
experiment:</p>

<p>cathod : copper tube coated with Palladium</p>

<p>D2 pressure : 7 millibars</p>

<p>water flow : 8.33 cm3/sec.</p>

<p>potential : 386 Volts</p>

<p>current : O.5 Amp.</p>

<p>The measured DeltaT was :5.00�C. The calculated one was :
(386*0.5)/(8.33*4.18)=5.54�C. The 0.54 deviation is quite
normal. This is due to ,the thermal leaks of the cell (of course
uninsulated ) for the power of 386*0.5=193 watts. We did not see
any variation of this DeltaT neither during this experiment nor
the others.So no excess heat ...</p>

<p align="center"><img src="images/fig10.jpg" width="484"
height="788"><strong> Fig10</strong></p>

<p>A careful examination of the metal surface has shown beautiful
inflorescences ( see Figure 10), but no modification of the metal
composition. No more transmutations...</p>

<p><em><strong>-</strong></em><em><strong><u>Conclusion:</u></strong></em>
this example is quite representative of all our experiments
whithin this cell. No excess heat, no transmutations have been
observed.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong><u>Acknowledgements:</u></strong></p>

<p>The authors want to thank very much all the LEI personnel for
their help and support. Special mention to:</p>

<p>Gerard LALLEVE which was very helpful for all electrical and
hydraulical aspects of the measurements,</p>

<p>Gerard LE BUZIT which designed and built all the glass devices
and help us </p>

<p>for the tightness problems,</p>

<p>and the last but not the least Nathaly VASSAL for her
permanent good mood </p>

<p>and her kindness in particular for reading and correcting this
unsuccess story. </p>

<p><strong><u>References</u></strong><strong>:</strong></p>

<p>(1) Fleischmann,M and S. Pons,&quot; Electrochemically Induced
Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium&quot; <i>J. Electroanal. Chem</i>.
261 (1990) 301 </p>

<p>(2) Lonchampt G., Reproduction of Fleichmann &amp; Pons
Experiment, &quot;<i>The Sixth International Conf. on Cold
Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy, </i>(Ed. M. Okamoto)
Oct. 13-18, 1996 Hokkaido, Japan, Vol.1, page 113 </p>

<hr>

<p><img src="images/notepad.gif" align="top" width="19"
height="21"> <em>For more informations, Email to</em> <a
href="mailto:101722.2050 compuserve.com"><strong>Pierre Clauzon</strong></a>
at : <a href="mailto:101722.2050 compuserve.com"><strong>101722.2050@compuserve.com</strong></a></p>

<hr>

<p align="center"><img
src="http://www2.fortunecity.com/user-cgi/Count.cgi?df=Zeta2.004&amp;style=b"
align="top"> <em>since November 10th, 1998</em></p>

<p align="center"><font size="4"><b>Return to the</b></font><font
size="5"><b> </b></font><a
href="http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/index.htm"><font size="5"><b>JLN
Labs</b></font></a> <font size="4"><b>home page</b></font></p>
</body>
</html>

--------------608171BE480--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 18:30:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09690;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:29:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:29:15 -0800
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: <364B8C46.90A2C522 css.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:32:54 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CX2uw.0.7N2.wbvIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24452
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> All in all, this photo literally screams of authenticity. 

Mitch..... just one question.  Of all the other lists out there, why did you
pick this one?


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:03:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20066;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:58:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:58:57 -0800
Message-ID: <364BA0B0.28E0 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:00:00 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
References: <3.0.32.19981112194744.00c322a0 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nDlGS.0.Pv4.m1wIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24453
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 

> Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no topologist. But if you look carefully
> you'll find quite a few papers that address various topics in E&M and
> the like in a reasonably understandable manner. This really makes
> me want to dive into that field, the stuff he's talking about
> (like torsion waves) are the theoretical kick in the ass that
> generates those great new experiments.

Well, Keith, I think you're right!  There may even be a ball lightning
model hidden somewhere in this stuff!

I know how smart the University of Houston guys are (Frank Stenger,
class of '57).  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:08:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20531;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <007301be0eb1$abcb9a00$b48f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Dawn of the Hydrogen Age (Page 5) (http://www.hotwired.com/collections/space_e
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:56:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE0E76.94DD1840"
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: <"8FvVq1.0.f05.r8wIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24454
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_0016_01BE0E76.94DD1840
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

More on Hydrogen and Nanofibers/Nanotubes

http://www.hotwired.com/collections/space_exploration/5.10_hydrogen5.html

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE0E76.94DD1840
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" Dawn of the Hydrogen Age (Page 5).url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" Dawn of the Hydrogen Age (Page 5).url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.hotwired.com/collections/space_exploration/5.10_hydrogen=
5.html
Modified=3D8097DA15B10EBE0184

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE0E76.94DD1840--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:13:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA22138;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981112210925.00987820 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:09:25 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
In-Reply-To: <364B8C46.90A2C522 css.mot.com>
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7dBeR3.0.pP5.8EwIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24457
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:32 PM 11/12/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:

>Mitch..... just one question.  Of all the other lists out there, why did you
>pick this one?

I, too, am ready for this ALIEN/SETI thread to vanish from Vortex-L.

Please, Mitch, will you stop?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:15:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA22007;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <364BA30E.5960 skylink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:10:06 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
References: <3.0.32.19981111230815.00b78350 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AyxHo1.0.mN5.lDwIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24456
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:

> http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carhomep.htm
> Is this guy hip or what?

Yes indeed. Thank you very much.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:20:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20825;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <007801be0eb2$071a8a60$b48f85ce default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:02:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"QXIoV1.0.H55.5BwIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24455
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis J. Stenger <fstenger interlaced.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Must see web site!!!

Frank Stenger wrote:


>Keith Nagel wrote:
>> 
>
>> Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no topologist. But if you look carefully
>> you'll find quite a few papers that address various topics in E&M and
>> the like in a reasonably understandable manner. This really makes
>> me want to dive into that field, the stuff he's talking about
>> (like torsion waves) are the theoretical kick in the ass that
>> generates those great new experiments.
>
>Well, Keith, I think you're right!  There may even be a ball lightning
>model hidden somewhere in this stuff!
>
>I know how smart the University of Houston guys are (Frank Stenger,
>class of '57).  :-)

Are you throwing Rice, Frank?   :-)

FJS,too
>
>Frank Stenger
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:24:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29769;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130321.VAA24846 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:20:02 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Tool for spoting things on images using metrics
Resent-Message-ID: <"_QjmU2.0.zG7.ENwIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24458
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Hi all,
>
>I think this tool would be useful to share "hard to see" discoveries on NASA
>images :)
>
>Necessity rose when I didn't able locate the "Sun cruiser" despite the all
>effort spend by Mitchell Jones.
>
>1) Cut and paste this code (3 lines) into an editor (notepad)
>
>2) Replace the "generic.gif" on the second line by the real image name, for
>example "eithe_soho13_big.gif".  Quotes should be included)
>
>3) Save as "map.htm" in the directory of the NASA image is found.
>
>
>4) Call the map.htm.
>
>Status line of the browser will display the cursor (finger) location in pixel
>coordinates as ".../pixel(x,y)?0,0.
>
>Note: Be sure the browser show the picture in its original size.
>
>The html code (3 lines):
>
>
><HTML><BODY>
><A HREF="pixel(x,y)"> <img src="generic.gif" ismap> </A>
></BODY></HTML>
>
>
>Note: This code could be more simplified by striping first and the last lines.
>:)
>
>Regards,
>hamdi ucar

***{I tried this and, so far, I haven't gotten it to work. As I indicated
to you in private e-mail, I know nothing about HTML. However, thinking by
analogy to the computer languages that I do know, I must say that I see
nothing in the above code that resembles a branch instruction or a loop
command. It looks like straight fall-through code. If so, then each command
will be executed only once, in a top-to-bottom, left-to-right order, and,
if that is so, there is no way that the continuous position of the cursor
could be displayed on the status line as the cursor is moved about on the
screen. Am I to take it, then, that control will jump automatically from
the bottom to the top, and loop through this code over and over again,
thereby continuously updating the position of the cursor on the status
line? --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:24:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29798;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:54 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130321.VAA24843 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:20:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"3c5HL2.0.UH7.HNwIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24459
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> All in all, this photo literally screams of authenticity.
>
>Mitch..... just one question.  Of all the other lists out there, why did you
>pick this one?

***{I am interested in examining claims that fall outside the bounds of
contemporary, politically correct, loot funded, fad "science." However, I
prefer to deal with such claims from a rational perspective, using
scientific principles that have stood the test of time, and I prefer to
interact with knowledgeable, rational individuals who approach things from
a similar perspective. This is the only list I know of where those
conditions, to a significant degree, are satisfied. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets
>   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 19:46:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05664;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:44:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:44:50 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130344.VAA25112 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:43:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gte3y1.0.PO1.niwIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24460
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 07:32 PM 11/12/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>
>>Mitch..... just one question.  Of all the other lists out there, why did you
>>pick this one?
>
>I, too, am ready for this ALIEN/SETI thread to vanish from Vortex-L.

***{Why tell me about it? Get yourself a set of e-mail filters and make it
happen. --MJ}***

>
>Please, Mitch, will you stop?

***{Of course I will stop, if you set yourself an e-mail filter to
eliminate posts on these topics. When you do that, then the stream of
incoming mail that you receive will be sanitized in exactly the manner
which you prefer. I will even agree to place a tag in the subject line of
such posts, to make it easy for your filters to cull them out. Now do you
feel better? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>Scott Little
>EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
>512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX)
>little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 21:07:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28549;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:50:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:50:39 -0800
Message-ID: <364BD5EB.E24FD075 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:47:07 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Superluminal signalling
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E92068B6B1D728F0FC420105"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XKRsF3.0._z6.UgxIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24461
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.
--------------E92068B6B1D728F0FC420105
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jim Ostrowski couldn't ge this to post to Vortex, so I'm forwarding it
for him.

Kyle R. Mcallister
--------------E92068B6B1D728F0FC420105
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <jimostr ca-ois.com>
Received: from ca-ois.com (nexgen [12.9.213.2])
	by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA26748
	for <stk sunherald.infi.net>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from JIMOSTRO [12.9.213.33] by ca-ois.com
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A5891260272; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:28:57 PST
Message-ID: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:02:20 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stk sunherald.infi.net
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Superluminal signalling]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------30E67B7934A2"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------30E67B7934A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey Kyle,

The MIBS must be at it again. I tried posting the attached message to
vortex and it bounced back undeliverable. Repost it for me if you want.

Jim Ostrowski

--------------30E67B7934A2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <364BB650.3DCE ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:32:16 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
References: <364B6D17.79ACD2A3 sunherald.infi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> 
> Here's one for you guys: (Jim O.: help me out here;)
> 

OK.

> It is said that no signal can exceed the speed of light. Well, lets
> assume for a minute that I figure out some way of building a device
> which can send a signal (non-monotonous, but changing intelligibly)
> faster than light. The device works this way: A normal transmitter sends
> a radio beam to a detector, and the transit time is measured. The
> special device is placed next to the normal transmitter, and sends a
> signal to the detector. The signal velocity (time it takes the signal to
> get from A to B) is measured to be 5c. Nevertheless, the front velocity
> is always equal to c. 

How can THAT happen? If the signal velocity was 5C the "front"
(risetime) of the signal
gets to the detector five times faster thsn the risetime of the siganl
travelling at C.  

 What I find incomprehensible is the assumption that information
traveling faster than c represents a violation of causality.  Causality
simply means that the cause of an event precedes the effect of the
event. In this case, for example, a siganl is emitted before it is
detected in either case whether the signal is travelling at C or 5C.

     If the travel time were 1 million times faster than c, the cause
would still precede the effect, and causality would not be violated.

   Somehow, uncritical acceptance of the theory of relativity has become
so great that it is now assumed, even by the physicists testing for such
effects, that information transfer in excess of c violates causality!
  
In experiments where "photons" are alleged to traverse a millimeter
barrier at speeds in excess of C, all that is actually violated in such
a case is Einstein's second  postulate, ie. that the speed of light is a
constant, equal to c.

Hope this helps.

>Looking at this from a relativistic standpoint, I
> could send a signal back in time, at least back to the point when the
> front velocity pulse hit the detector. This still implies that a paradox
> can be generated. Nevertheless, many say that without a front velocity
> >C, the signal velocity is meaningless. Whats going on here???

Wait a minit. My BS detector is blinking.

BSCHECK

C:\command.com 
cd BSDET
BSDET.BAT
BSDET.EXE
 
BS detected.!

Yep. It' BS alright!

 BS is DEFINITELY going on here, Kyle.  

> 
> I don't know about you, but I am sick of "Gedanken experiments." I say,
> if someone sends "Hi-ho, hi-ho" to a station on Mars, and it takes T<D/C
> to get there, the signal is FTL, Gedanken notwithstanding.
>

Right on!

Jim O.


--------------30E67B7934A2--




--------------E92068B6B1D728F0FC420105--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 21:15:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA01891;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:14:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:14:36 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:10:20 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Kinetic Furnace Test
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811130013_MC2-6017-F04D compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"W4rlF2.0.PT.x0yIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24462
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Report on a Test of the Kinetic Furnace

By Jed Rothwell
November 12, 1998

Copyright Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. 1998

Abstract

On November 11, 1998 I visited Ralph Pope in Cumming, Georgia to test the
kinetic furnace. I performed a single run, turning on the rotor at 1:20 p.m.
and turning off the rotor and fan 145 minutes later at 4:44 p.m. The device
generated excess heat, with a C. O. P. (coefficient of production)
conservatively estimated at 1.6 (60% excess heat). Input was 3.2 kW or 10,921
BTU/hr, and output was 17,132 BTU/hr. I recorded data manually using crude but
reliable instruments. This was not intended to be a definitive or
sophisticated test. We plan to follow up with additional tests using better
computerized instruments from our laboratory at Bow, New Hampshire.


Eugene Mallove and I tested a kinetic furnace on April 9, 1998 and measured a
C. O. P. of 1.38 (see Infinite Energy issue 19). Subsequently, two kinetic
furnaces were sent to Bow. They did not produce significant excess heat. The
temperature of the water in the rotor chamber did not rise as rapidly as it
did in Georgia, and it did not rise as far. Pope visited Bow to assist, but he
was unable to fix the problem. Pope recently purchased a used anemometer that
measures multiple points at one time with a square foot array of Pitot tubes.
I had planned to compare the readings from his anemometer to our Pacer
Industries, Inc. DTA4000 model digital thermometer, anemometer and data
logger. Unfortunately the rechargeable batteries in Pope's anemometer were not
working so we were unable to make the comparison. In our previous test we
compared the DTA4000 to a Dwyer pressure based velocity meter with a single
Pitot tube. The two instruments agreed closely.

The kinetic furnace consists of an electric motor that turns a rotor, a
radiator, a squirrel cage fan, and a square duct. Water is heated in the rotor
compartment and cooled off in the radiator. The fan forces air through the
radiator and out the duct. The duct was 1.6 meters long, 0.6 meters of steel
plate with a cardboard extension. The duct is one square foot (30 cm  square).
Excess heat is measured by comparing input power (amperage and voltage) to
output heat. Output heat is determined by measuring the volume of air moving
through the duct, the ambient temperature, and the temperature of the warm air
in the duct. The kinetic furnace was installed in and automobile parts machine
shop, which is a steel building with loading dock doors open and several large
milling and fabrication machines in operation. Despite the outside air and
occasional small gusts of wind and the vigorous and noisy operation of the
nearby heavy machinery, the ambient temperature was remarkably stable. The
weather was fine, clear and cool with little wind.

The following instruments were used in this test:

Pacer Industries, Inc. model DTA4000 impeller anemometer. The built-in
thermometer was also used. 

1 Amprobe "Ultra" clamp on inductive analog ammeter and voltmeter.

Micronta clamp on inductive analog ammeter and voltmeter.

Acu-rite digital electronic thermometer with two thermocouples.

Bimetallic dial thermocouple to measure ambient temperature.

Red alcohol thermometer from ABC School Supply, Inc.

Dial thermometer on rotor chamber to measure the water temperature inside.

Stopwatch.

Electronic camera, which is invaluable for this kind of test.

The test began at 12:45 a.m. The fan was turned on and the wind velocity was
measured in F. P. M. (feet per minute) with the DTA4000. The anemometer was
mounted on a camera tripod. The impeller was positioned at nine points on a 3
x 3 array, with points equidistant three inches apart. When the impeller arm
was exposed to the most wind at position 3:3 (bottom right) it vibrated
slightly. The impeller was placed at a grid point and left to stabilize for
one minute. Eight or nine readings were taken spaced at 10 second intervals.
The average value was 1136 fpm, standard deviation 48, minimum 1029, maximum
1204. See data set below.

At 1:20 p.m. the fan was turned off and the rotor was turned on. The stopwatch
was reset and started. (All subsequent notations will be in minutes after the
start of experiment.)

Amperage and voltage was read with both meters. Voltage was 200 volts. The
Amprobe showed 15 or 16 amps. The Micronta went off the 15 amp scale, and
showed 14 or 15 amps on the 60 amp scale. Voltage was not measured again
during this experiment. Pope says his never seen voltage vary measurably from
200. Amperage was noted a few times during the run. It did not change
measurably.

The water temperature rose rapidly, reaching 150 degrees Fahrenheit after 14
minutes. This was much better performance than we observed in Bow. At 18
minutes the water temperature rose to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. At minute 20 I
took electronic photograph of the stopwatch and the water temperature dial
thermometer registering 175 degrees. We did not achieve this high temperature
in Bow.

At minute 20 the fan was turned on. The water temperature fell rapidly,
reaching 110 degrees by minute 31. Pope commented that the fan was removing
too much heat. The water temperature should be held at 140 degrees for optimum
performance. The air temperature in the duct stabilized at 83 ~ 84 degrees
with a room temperature of 70 degrees.

Ambient temperature was measured an electronic thermometer, the bimetallic
dial thermometer, and the red alcohol thermometer. They were placed on a stool
three meters away from the kinetic furnace, near a milling machine and an open
door. I had some difficulty establishing ambient temperature with assurance.
The Acu-rite thermometers were not very accurate, being as much as 2.7 degrees
Fahrenheit different from one another and from the red alcohol thermometer.
The DTA4000 thermometer and the red alcohol thermometer agreed closely. Before
and during the test, I moved two thermometers around the room and saw less
than one degree temperature difference in air temperature at all locations a
meter or more away from heavy equipment. At minute 75 I  placed the DTA4000
near the stool to measure ambient temperature with the built-in thermometer.
At minute 105 I discovered that the milling machine nearby interfered with
electronics in the control box. When I lifted the control box, the temperature
display changed from 71.6 to 71.1 degrees Fahrenheit. I put it down again and
it changed back to 71.6, repeatedly. I moved it a meter away and it dropped to
71.1 and remained stable. The red alcohol thermometer registered 71, and the
Acu-rite registered 68.9 and 68.5. I moved the stool two meters further inside
the building, to a location where all instruments indicated the air was
slightly colder, and all reached the same spread of values they showed before
the run: 70.7 on the DTA4000, and 70, 68.7, 68.0 on the others. In the new
location the anemometer moved with a slight draft of 70 FPM. The air was
moving towards the kinetic furnace.

During the course of the test run, particularly in the last half-hour, the
ambient air temperature fell ~4 degrees Fahrenheit. The water and duct air
temperature also fell to the same extent.

I determined the Delta T temperature by comparing thermometers in the room to
those in the duct, and by moving the same thermometer back and forth. I
believe the latter is the most accurate method. Although the different
thermometers did not agree on the absolute temperature, when moved back and
forth, they showed the same temperature difference between the duct air and
the ambient room air to within one degree, except as noted above, when the
DTA4000 thermometer malfunctioned. The red alcohol thermometer was moved most
often because it stabilized quickly. For example, at minute 83 it registered
70 degrees ambient, and at minute 90 it registered 84 degrees in the duct, a
14 degree Delta T. From minute 31 to the end of the run at 145 minutes (2
hours 25 minutes), the Delta T remained constant at 13 ~ 14 degrees
Fahrenheit.

A cooling trend was noted at around minute 120 (3:20 p.m.) because the
building was open to the late afternoon autumn weather. The cooling trend plus
the move to measuring ambient at a drafty, cool location in the building
increased the Delta T to ~15 degrees Fahrenheit.


Input and Output Power Computations

Input power is measured as follows:

16 amps x 200 volts = 3.2 kW
3.2 kW x 3413 conversion factor = 10,921 BTU/hr

Output power is:

1136 CFM x 1.08 conversion factor x 13 degrees Fahrenheit Delta T = 15,949
BTU/hr

This is a conservative estimate, based on the average CFM and the lowest
reasonable Delta T. Taking the lowest recorded CFM of 1029 CFM, and assuming
the Delta T was only 12 degrees Fahrenheit, output would be 13,336 BTU/hr, 22%
excess.

This estimate is even more conservative because much of the heat from the
machine was not captured. One side of the kinetic furnace equipment cabinet
was removed to allow access for our instruments. The exposed metal of the
rotor case was 110 degrees. It radiated a great deal of heat into the air
around the furnace. Additional heat was lost because the temperature was taken
at the end of the duct, and the duct was warm to the touch, and radiating
between the kinetic furnace and the thermometers.


Conclusion

The kinetic furnace generated 60% excess heat, estimated conservatively, for
two hours after the initial burst of stored up heat was released when the fan
was turned on. In previous tests, the furnace has run for longer periods with
sustained excess the entire time. Our next tasks are:

1. To measure again in Cumming, Georgia with improved instrumentation and
automatic data recording. Much more attention must be paid to input power
measurement, which was done in a cursory manner in this test. However, it
seems unlikely that this is the source of an error, because the motors for the
rotor and fan are likely to draw 60% more power in Georgia without burning our
or at producing much more wind, yet we saw a similar volume of air in Bow.

2. To determine why the machine did not produce excess heat in Bow. In this
test, the water heated more quickly and reached higher temperature than we
observed in Bow.

After Pope brought this machine back to Cumming, he overhauled it and
installed a new rotor and new hoses. Perhaps this rectified the problem, or
perhaps the water or other materials in Georgia improved performance. A
mensuration error seems unlikely, given the large and robust results observed
in this test, and the fact that the machine produced large excess heat in
other tests over the years at Dunn Laboratories, Inc. (1982, 1983), Pittsburgh
Testing Laboratory (1984, 1986), Automated Test Labs (1986) and elsewhere.


DATA SECTION

Anemometer Readings

Grid position 1:1 is the top left; 2:2 is the middle of the duct; and 3:3 is
the bottom right. Thirteen sets of readings were taken, repeated eight or nine
times at 10 second intervals.

Grid
position
1:1    1204, 1188, 1185, 1198, 1172, 1176, 1172, 1198, 1195
1:2    1176, 1190, 1190, 1188, 1171, 1185, 1191, 1199, 1169
1:3    1166, 1183, 1171, 1169, 1153, 1150, 1166, 1176, 1177
2:1    1187, 1190, 1101, 1133, 1116, 1142, 1098, 1130, 1100
2:2    1182, 1134, 1129, 1142, 1157, 1150, 1141, 1155
2:3    1161, 1161, 1166, 1155, 1157, 1160, 1168, 1149, 1163
3:1    1078, 1076, 1084, 1084, 1076, 1072, 1051, 1062, 1068
3:2    1055, 1046, 1044, 1062, 1029, 1046, 1078, 1071, 1052
3:3    1117, 1111, 1109, 1098, 1108, 1103, 1106, 1093, 1101

Read later one hour after heat turned on:

1:2    1221, 1228, 1228, 1290, 1202, 1206, 1234, 1229

Read two hours after heat turned on:

1:2    1199, 1207, 1206, 1177, 1185, 1179, 1201, 1187
2:2    1097, 1104, 1101, 1086, 1128, 1122, 1117, 1114
3:2    1054, 1043, 1037, 1048, 1060, 1044, 1046, 1030


Thermometer Readings

This is complicated by several factors:

Readings were done at irregular times, and some thermometers were not read.

Several thermometers were used.

There was a large bias between thermometers.

Two thermometers were moved during the run from the duct to ambient and back.

The DTA4000 thermometer malfunctioned, as explained above.

The electronic thermometers display temperature to the nearest 0.1 degree
Fahrenheit; the dial thermometers are marked in 10 degree divisions; the red
alcohol thermometer is marked in 2 degree Fahrenheit and 1 degree Celsius.

The response time varies for each thermometers. The red alcohol thermometer
stabilizes at a new temperature within a few minutes, the DTA4000 takes 10 or
15 minutes.

Column headings in this table are:

Minute - Minute since start of run
Water - Water temperature in the rotor chamber
Acu 1 Amb. - Acu-rite digital thermometer register 1, ambient
Acu 2 Amb. - Acu-rite digital thermometer register 2, ambient
Red Amb. - Red alcohol thermometer when measuring ambient
Red Duct - Red alcohol thermometer when moved to duct
DTA Amb. - DTA4000 thermometer when measuring ambient
DTA Amb. - DTA4000 thermometer when measuring duct
Delta T - Duct temperature minus ambient

             Acu 1 Acu 2 Red   Red  DTA  DTA
Minute Water Amb.  Amb.  Amb.  Duct Amb. Duct Delta T
14     150   73.9  72.0  74
18     170   71.8  69.8  71
22                                       89.4
26     120   70.7  70.2  72              85.3
31     110   70.7  70.2  72              84.0

Water temperature and duct air temperature have stabilized

35           70.2  69.3                  83.3 13
40           70.2  70.0                  83.3 13

Red alcohol thermometer moved to duct

50           70.0  69.4        83        83.7 13
52     110   70.2  69.8        83        83.3 13
60     110   69.6  69.6  MOVED 83        83.3 13

Red alcohol thermometer moved back to ambient


65           69.6  69.1  72              83.3 14
70                                       83.3

DTA4000 moved to ambient, where it malfunctions


75                       70         77.2
78           69.4  68.4  70         75.0
83           69.4  68.5  70         74.0

Red alcohol thermometer moved to duct

90                             84   72.5

Red alcohol thermometer moved back to ambient

94           69.3  69.3  71         72.0
98                                  72.0
101          68.9  68.5  71         71.6

105 Malfunction detected: DTA4000 changes from 71.6 to 71.1
All ambient thermometers shifted 2 meters
Red alcohol thermometer moved to duct

112                            84   71.1

Red alcohol thermometer moved back to ambient

117          68.7  68.0  70           70.7
120    110   68.7  68.7  71           70.5

Cooling trend noted; late afternoon in building open to outside
Red alcohol thermometer moved to duct

133    105   68.2  67.5        83        83.0 15

Red alcohol thermometer moved back to ambient

140          68.0  67.5  69              82.6 15

Red alcohol thermometer moved to duct

144                            82        82.6

145    Run is terminated


* End of File *

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 21:36:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13711;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:34:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:34:51 -0800
Message-ID: <364BDB13.5CDD5C8A sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:09:07 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jimostr ca-ois.com, Vortex-L <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Superluminal signalling]
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YeavR3.0.-L3.wJyIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24463
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jim Ostrowski wrote:

> > It is said that no signal can exceed the speed of light. Well, lets
> > assume for a minute that I figure out some way of building a device
> > which can send a signal (non-monotonous, but changing intelligibly)
> > faster than light. The device works this way: A normal transmitter sends
> > a radio beam to a detector, and the transit time is measured. The
> > special device is placed next to the normal transmitter, and sends a
> > signal to the detector. The signal velocity (time it takes the signal to
> > get from A to B) is measured to be 5c. Nevertheless, the front velocity
> > is always equal to c.
> 
> How can THAT happen? If the signal velocity was 5C the "front"
> (risetime) of the signal
> gets to the detector five times faster thsn the risetime of the siganl
> travelling at C.

I don't know, but the guys who run things (W. Heitmann, R. Chiao, etc.)
claim that the signal velocity can exceed C, but can't transmit an
intelligible signal. They also claim the front velocity never exceeds C.
???

>    Somehow, uncritical acceptance of the theory of relativity has become
> so great that it is now assumed, even by the physicists testing for such
> effects, that information transfer in excess of c violates causality!

I know. I've found that most physicists much rather hide behind the wall
of relativity than to move on tho bigger and better things. Ether or no
ether, it is obvious that things travel FTL. Since they do, dare we say
that Einsteinian relativity applies? Who ever said that Einstein was
even right about superluminal motion? In my mind, Lorentz relativity is
much more reasonable. And almost every introductory physics student who
has it explained to them agrees. But when the instructor tells them
something, they almost always accept it as fact. Blindly follow
leadership, never ask questions. Anything other than that and they'll
destroy your physics career.
> 
> In experiments where "photons" are alleged to traverse a millimeter
> barrier at speeds in excess of C, all that is actually violated in such
> a case is Einstein's second  postulate, ie. that the speed of light is a
> constant, equal to c.

Exactly. But then, physicists ask me, why is the speed of light measured
to be a constant in every direction? I ask them, what happens when you
add alcohol and water? They end up less volume than normal. Sort of like
this:

If you have an observer (A) going .5C WRT (B), A measures the speed of
light to be constant in every direction.

		<<<<<<<<<<<C<<<<<<<<<<<<A>>>>>>>>>>C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A sends a radio message to B, who he is approaching. The signal arrives
at B moving at C, since light travels always equal to C. But then this
implies that one measurement of C is in error; that is, A cannot measure
C to be 300,000km/sec and B cannot measure the speed of the radio signal
plus A's velocity to be 300,000km/sec. Its obvious someone is wrong. How
do we clear this little dilema up? Relativity experts say, "Well, its
just one of those things where common sense and reality don't apply."
(an actual response) Lets see what happens if we invoke a Lorentzian
rest frame E, and let B be at rest WRT E. Now, B will measure the speed
of light in every direction to be C, and he is correct. A, who is moving
toward B, measures the speed of his radio signal to be C, but he is in
error since he moves WRT the rest frame. In actuality, the speed of
light becomes greater in one direction, and slower in the other. Since
normal light cannot exceed the speed of light, his radio beam velocity
contracts with motion in the rest frame, and is really travelling
150,000km/sec toward B WRT A. But since time dilation and length
contraction occur, A doesn't know this. He still then believes that the
speed of light is constant in every direction. So, which do you prefer:
Einsteinian relativity, with no resolution to the above paradox, or
Lorentz relativity, which is a bit more complex but explains it
nonetheless. ??? Whoever said the universe had to be simple. BTW: in
case you haven't figured it out yet, I don't believe causality violates
or backwards-in-time signalling happens when you send something FTL, and
I'm no relativist. ;)

>
> Yep. It' BS alright!
> 
>  BS is DEFINITELY going on here, Kyle.

Precisely what I thought. Oh, where is the modern day Holland, where
scientists could freely perform work without being ridiculed? :-)

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 21:47:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA18721;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:38:19 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Please REMOVE this SETI clutter
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811130041_MC2-6008-78AD compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"E4_xm2.0.Oa4.nTyIs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24464
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

SETI is off-topic here. CETI is okay. Please remove discussions of aliens
and conspiracies to some other forum devoted to these topics -- there must be
thousands of them Out There.  The truth is Out There!  It is not In Here.
Okay?

Take it to Vortex-L, or take it off line. It is not polite to force dozens of
people to wade through this kind of clutter or fiddle with filters. People
here have not responded to this off-topic discussion because they do not want
to discuss it, they do not care or (like me) they think the whole subject is
silly. An occasional reference to discussions in other forums or a web page
address is welcome; extended quotes and cross-posting spam is a damn nuisance.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 21:55:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA24348;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:54:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:54:22 -0800
Message-ID: <364BD075.128 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:23:50 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: mjones jump.net
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net> <3.0.5.32.19981112210925.00987820@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MARiB.0.Fy5.DcyIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24465
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
> At 07:32 PM 11/12/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
> 
> >Mitch..... just one question.  Of all the other lists out there, why did you
> >pick this one?
> 
> I, too, am ready for this ALIEN/SETI thread to vanish from Vortex-L.

Guess what. The issue of whether or not there is an alien/seti thread on
this list is not up for a referendum. SETI is a valid scientific topic
as evidenced by the "league" supposedly dedicated to the effort. THIS
LIST IS NOT THE PRIVATE DOMAIN OF CF ENTHUSIASTS.

 How many times do I have to repeat that before y'all get it?

1.Read the Charter.

2.Use your delete key or or filters as Mitchell suggested. Otherwise bug
off.

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 12 23:12:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA14092;
	Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:11:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:11:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113151311.00acbdf0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:13:11 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
In-Reply-To: <199811120719.BAA28043 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jwrdt3.0.6S3.OkzIs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24466
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:17 12/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>John Winterflood wrote:
>>Was just looking at some of the "debris" in these photos:
>>
>>ftp://lasco6.nascom.nasa.gov/pub/lasco/status/LASCO_Debris_List
>>
>>A particularly interesting one is the one listed as
>>
>>06-Jun-1996     00:16           C3      Unusual shape (inverted V)
>
>***{The "inverted V" is likely a portion of the field of the
>photo that is masked off by some structure on the SOHO satellite
>itself.

Look it is not _me_ that called the inverted V shaped thing
"debris", it is NASA themselves - Simon Plunkett
(plunkett kreutz.nascom.nasa.gov) or Chris St.Cyr
(cst sdac.nascom.nasa.gov) I would guess.  I imagine they
know rather well that there are no arms on the satellite
that can reach out and obscure some of the field of view.
Besides which if it was something so close then it would
not be in focus.

>The
>debris--probably cometary debris--is clearly present streaming from the
>lower left toward the blanked out solar disc in the center.

Goodness you can't have looked at many pictures from the C3
camera or you would have noticed that they all have your
"debris clearly streaming from the lower left..."!  If you
look at the information about the C3 optics system you will
see that there are two occulting disks (to black out the
bright image of the sun in the centre) and these disks are
both held in place at the end of a pylon.  I rather expect
that this "streaming debris" is partial obscuration due to
the pylon being in that position.

By the way, the size of the sun seems to be given by the
small white circle in the high-res processed images.  The
large grey area is the occulting disk, not the sun.

>The highly
>reflective object on the left, on the other hand, is clearly the
>"suncruiser."

What makes you think it is reflective?  In which case why
can't it just be reflective debris?  Ah maybe it is the
"wings" that make it look so like an alien craft?  Of
course wings are a lot of use in space flight!  Or maybe
they are solar collecting panels to recharge their batteries!
Strange how the aliens always line them up perfectly with
the pixels in the CCD isn't it! :-)

>>
>>A low res image is:
>>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960606_c3.gif
>>
>>High res image (although it is so large that the low res is OK)
>>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960606c3.gif
>>
>>This doesn't look like "debris" to me because of its very
>>smooth edges.  In fact I think it looks rather like the
>>trajectory of a large object which takes evasive action
>>to avoid the sun!  If it is a trajectory, it is certainly
>>behaving in an anti-gravitational manner!
>
>***{The explanation for the unexposed region of film in the
>shape of an inverted V seems fairly obvious. (See above.)

Well it might be obvious to you but the NASA guys picked it
out as anomalous and that is why it is in that list and why
they have called it unusual.  And I certainly think it is
unusual for debris to be that large and smooth shaped, or
moving that rapidly (the exposure time is probably around
30secs) and being so strongly repelled from the sun.

>But can you explain the so
>called "suncruiser?" It doesn't look like a naturally occurring
>object to me. --Mitchell Jones}***

Sorry, but I think it looks like any old star would in a
sensitive telescope and the "wings" are where the row of
CCD pixels or scan electronics has oversaturated.

>>
>>Anyone know what the exposure time is for these photos?

I'll answer my own question - a full light (no filter)
picture on the C3 camera without polariser is expected to
expose for about 1/2 minute.  With polarisers and/or
filters this figure goes up to around 7 minutes. See:
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/handbook/tab11-1.html

>>There is also a "suncruiser" looking thing on the left in
>>this photo, but it is pretty uninteresting compared to the
>>trajectory.
>
>***{You left off the smiley, which is just as well, since your
>tongue-in-cheek comments aren't very funny. (I think you should work on
>your comedy routine some more before you take it on the road.) --Mitchell
>Jones}***

Well it wasn't meant to be funny.  I don't find an
overexposed photo of a star particularly interesting.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to view any of the
mpegs - so I don't know if any of these "stars" move
in non-gravitational orbits.  If they did, I would be
rather interested.

Another big wide streak with anomalous trajectory :-
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/970214_c3.gif
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_970214c3.gif

And the best one of the lot that I have seen so far :-
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960905_c3.gif
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960905c3.gif
Looks like the "debris" zooms in, takes a good peek straight
down the optics for a moment, and then zooms back out again!

The size and trajectory of this one are also highly anomalous:
http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960827_c3.gif
(If it goes behind the sun then it is much bigger than
the sun!  If it is in front then it is anti-gravitational!)

Some very interesting photos here.  I must ask my astronomy
professor what he thinks these objects are!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 00:31:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA31535;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:29:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:29:54 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981113083707.00e8d114 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, 13 Nov 1998 03:37:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"vItE11.0.fi7.2u-Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24467
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;



At 10:20 PM 11/12/98 -0600, you wrote:

>***{I am interested in examining claims that fall outside the bounds of
>contemporary, politically correct, loot funded, fad "science." However, I
>prefer to deal with such claims from a rational perspective, using
>scientific principles that have stood the test of time, and I prefer to
>interact with knowledgeable, rational individuals who approach things from
>a similar perspective. This is the only list I know of where those
>conditions, to a significant degree, are satisfied. --Mitchell Jones}***


I think keeping to date on the SOHO 'Suncruiser' issue is interesting.
Trying to force an explaination of these images may just get access shut off
though.

The lizard alien photo... well it looks like a 6' hardwood walking stick
might disuade a few of them from introducing themselves to one's self at any
rate.


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 01:40:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA16119;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:38:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:38:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130937.DAA28948 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:36:40 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zy-aH2.0.jx3.Nu_Is" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24468
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Note: when you read this through to the end, you will discover that I
ended up pretty close to John's point-of-view. I am going to leave my
annotations unchanged, to provide a perspective on the process by which
that came about. I am doing this because some of you seem to think I am
unduly open minded on this topic, and that my brains have fallen out.
Perhaps after reading this, you will see that I am trying very hard to make
sense out of this stuff, and that I am capable of bouts of close-mindedness
myself! --Mitchell Jones}***

>At 02:17 12/11/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>John Winterflood wrote:
>>>Was just looking at some of the "debris" in these photos:
>>>
>>>ftp://lasco6.nascom.nasa.gov/pub/lasco/status/LASCO_Debris_List
>>>
>>>A particularly interesting one is the one listed as
>>>
>>>06-Jun-1996     00:16           C3      Unusual shape (inverted V)
>>
>>***{The "inverted V" is likely a portion of the field of the
>>photo that is masked off by some structure on the SOHO satellite
>>itself.
>
>Look it is not _me_ that called the inverted V shaped thing
>"debris", it is NASA themselves - Simon Plunkett
>(plunkett kreutz.nascom.nasa.gov) or Chris St.Cyr
>(cst sdac.nascom.nasa.gov) I would guess.  I imagine they
>know rather well that there are no arms on the satellite
>that can reach out and obscure some of the field of view.

***{Unless something came loose during the wild gyrations that took place
over the past 3 months, while SOHO was spinning out of control. If a piece
of tape, or foil, or something similar is stuck to that lens, then the
sharp edge and lack of film exposure in that area would be plausible. Do
you know if the "inverted V" is present on all photos taken through that
lens, or just on the one photo? --Mitchell Jones}***

>Besides which if it was something so close then it would
>not be in focus.

***{Unless it is stuck on the lens itself. --MJ}***

>
>>The
>>debris--probably cometary debris--is clearly present streaming from the
>>lower left toward the blanked out solar disc in the center.
>
>Goodness you can't have looked at many pictures from the C3
>camera or you would have noticed that they all have your
>"debris clearly streaming from the lower left..."!

***{I have looked at several, but it is only on the ones with the light
blue coloration where the "pylon" shows up clearly. Still, your point seems
well taken. --MJ}***

 If you
>look at the information about the C3 optics system you will
>see that there are two occulting disks (to black out the
>bright image of the sun in the centre) and these disks are
>both held in place at the end of a pylon.

***{I had assumed that the effect had been achieved in the normal way: by
using HF to etch the center of the lens itself, and I find it curious that
SOHO does it differently. Where might I find a writeup about the C3 optics
system? --Mitchell Jones}***

 I rather expect
>that this "streaming debris" is partial obscuration due to
>the pylon being in that position.

***{It does seem to be present in several of the photos that I have, so it
looks to me like your interpretation is correct. --MJ}***

>
>By the way, the size of the sun seems to be given by the
>small white circle in the high-res processed images.  The
>large grey area is the occulting disk, not the sun.

***{Yes. I had also arrived at that conclusion. --MJ}***

>
>>The highly
>>reflective object on the left, on the other hand, is clearly the
>>"suncruiser."
>
>What makes you think it is reflective?  In which case why
>can't it just be reflective debris?  Ah maybe it is the
>"wings" that make it look so like an alien craft?  Of
>course wings are a lot of use in space flight!  Or maybe
>they are solar collecting panels to recharge their batteries!
>Strange how the aliens always line them up perfectly with
>the pixels in the CCD isn't it! :-)

***{Not strange at all: my assumption is that the reflectivity of the
object at whatever waveband the blue tinted photos are taken in
(ultraviolet?) is sufficient to overwhelm the CCD elements when the angle
between the object and the camera is just right. (Think of glare on the
windows of another car in a parking lot: you only see it if you park in the
right spot.) If you looked at some of the computer enhanced blowups of
these images (see the suncruiser website), you will have noticed that an
object very similar to the one present in the clear photos is embedded in
the glare. As for why a starship parked that close to the sun would be
highly reflective, my assumption is that such reflectivity would be
necessary to prevent internal overheating. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>>
>>>A low res image is:
>>>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960606_c3.gif
>>>
>>>High res image (although it is so large that the low res is OK)
>>>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960606c3.gif
>>>
>>>This doesn't look like "debris" to me because of its very
>>>smooth edges.  In fact I think it looks rather like the
>>>trajectory of a large object which takes evasive action
>>>to avoid the sun!  If it is a trajectory, it is certainly
>>>behaving in an anti-gravitational manner!
>>
>>***{The explanation for the unexposed region of film in the
>>shape of an inverted V seems fairly obvious. (See above.)
>
>Well it might be obvious to you but the NASA guys picked it
>out as anomalous and that is why it is in that list and why
>they have called it unusual.  And I certainly think it is
>unusual for debris to be that large and smooth shaped, or
>moving that rapidly (the exposure time is probably around
>30secs) and being so strongly repelled from the sun.

***{I appreciate your comments. You have convinced me that this is, indeed,
what the NASA guys were labelling as "debris." However, granting that,
don't you think the best explanation is a piece of tape, or foil, or
something similar, stuck to the lens of that camera? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>But can you explain the so
>>called "suncruiser?" It doesn't look like a naturally occurring
>>object to me. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Sorry, but I think it looks like any old star would in a
>sensitive telescope and the "wings" are where the row of
>CCD pixels or scan electronics has oversaturated.

***{But if we consider it in context--that is, if we consider *all* of the
photos at the suncruiser site--I don't see how we can consider it to be a
star, or a comet, or Saturn, or Mars, though each of these interpretations
has been suggested. There are several clear photos in which the glare is
not present and the photographic plate is not oversaturated, and where the
device is shown clearly enough to discount all such theories. Bizarre
though it may seem, the thing looks more like a Klingon Warbird than
anything else! (My first reaction, in fact, was that the photo had been
doctored. However, NASA treats it as authentic, so I am left simply staring
at it , scratching my head in amazement, and speculating about possible
ties to the "Paul Dore" SETI hit and Art Bell's stunning alien photos!)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>>
>>>Anyone know what the exposure time is for these photos?
>
>I'll answer my own question - a full light (no filter)
>picture on the C3 camera without polariser is expected to
>expose for about 1/2 minute.  With polarisers and/or
>filters this figure goes up to around 7 minutes. See:
>http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/handbook/tab11-1.html

***{From the above numbers, it would seem that enough time elapsed for
something to move across the field of view in an inverted V pattern, but  I
don't see how the edges of the pattern could be so sharp, and I don't see
how the area within the pattern could have remained totally unexposed. The
best explanation still looks to me like a small object stuck on the lens
itself. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>>There is also a "suncruiser" looking thing on the left in
>>>this photo, but it is pretty uninteresting compared to the
>>>trajectory.
>>
>>***{You left off the smiley, which is just as well, since your
>>tongue-in-cheek comments aren't very funny. (I think you should work on
>>your comedy routine some more before you take it on the road.) --Mitchell
>>Jones}***
>
>Well it wasn't meant to be funny.  I don't find an
>overexposed photo of a star particularly interesting.

***{Considered in the context of the other photos, how can such an
explanation be viable? --MJ}***

>
>Unfortunately, I haven't been able to view any of the
>mpegs - so I don't know if any of these "stars" move
>in non-gravitational orbits.  If they did, I would be
>rather interested.

***{I'm in the same boat. Does anyone know where I can download a movie
player that will read mpegs on a Mac? --MJ}***

>
>Another big wide streak with anomalous trajectory :-
>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/970214_c3.gif

***{Wow! I'm beginning to get your drift! This one looks like the leg of an
insect touching the lens of the camera! (That's absurd, of course.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_970214c3.gif

***{Same as the above. Or it could be a trail of slime left by a snail
crawling on the lens of the camera! Insects and snails in space? Not very
damn likely. This is really strange stuff! --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>And the best one of the lot that I have seen so far :-
>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960905_c3.gif

***{Too weird! Surely we don't have snails crawling on the lenses! --MJ}***

>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/deb_960905c3.gif

***{Whoops! This one goes beyond the end of the pylon, because it is
obscured by the disc! So you are correct: this isn't on the lense. It is
something moving about in a clearly non-inertial trajectory, as if it is
examining the SOHO satellite! But what? Could it be that the satellite was
being examined by aliens onboard some sort of smalled runabout type of
vehicle? This photo seems to reduce us down to some such interpretation, by
a process of elimination. I give up. You are correct. These photos are very
interesting indeed! --Mitchell Jones}***

>Looks like the "debris" zooms in, takes a good peek straight
>down the optics for a moment, and then zooms back out again!

***{Yes, something like that. I apologize for failing to take you seriously
at first. As I have indicated, I try to be open minded, but sometimes my
mind just snaps shut despite my best efforts! I am, however, always open to
persuasion. You have brought up some very interesting issues, and if I may
say so, I think these photos fit in very well with the interpretation that
there is some sort of gigantic starship sitting there, just off from the
sun. Some sort of small powered vehicle has apparently been moving about,
examining the SOHO satellite! --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>The size and trajectory of this one are also highly anomalous:
>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960827_c3.gif

***{This clinches it! It's a vehicle moving under power. The reason: this
track is narrow, indicating that the vehicle is farther away from SOHO than
in the other shots. Result: it obscures a particular portion of the sky for
a shorter period during the time exposure, and thus it merely dims out the
background rather than obscuring it completely! What we are seeing here are
tracks left on time exposure film by a vehicle moving about in the vicinity
of SOHO, and moving under its own power! Somebody is examining SOHO, and it
ain't us! Congratulations, John! You found the smoking gun! --Mitchell
Jones}***

>(If it goes behind the sun then it is much bigger than
>the sun!  If it is in front then it is anti-gravitational!)

***{Yup. Since it can't be larger than the sun, it must be a powered
vehicle piloted by someone--perhaps a fellow with a greenish tint to his
skin, a crest of feathers on the back of his otherwise bald head, no
external ears, and a beautiful, kind, intelligent expression on his face!
And where did his little runabout come from? Why, from the suncruiser, of
course! --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Some very interesting photos here.  I must ask my astronomy
>professor what he thinks these objects are!

***{Yes, indeed. Read 'em and weep, naysayers! --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 01:51:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA18564;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:50:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:50:20 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b271b179e8dd [208.228.222.218]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:56:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"CNNtA3.0.-X4.R30Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24469
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:10 AM 11/13/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
>
>The kinetic furnace consists of an electric motor that turns a rotor, a
>radiator, a squirrel cage fan, and a square duct. Water is heated in the rotor
>compartment and cooled off in the radiator. The fan forces air through the
>radiator and out the duct.
[snip]

You have the basic ingredients for a water flow calorimeter, or dual method
calorimeter.  All you need is a water flowmeter in the water supply line
plus two temperature probes in the water stream on either side of the rotor
compartment.  It would provide some degree of cross-check, especially if
calibrated by a pulse from a joule heater in the water intake line after
the first temperature probe.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 01:57:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19888;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:56:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:56:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199811130956.DAA28988 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:55:05 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"1AZBH2.0.gs4.b90Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24470
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Hi;
>
>
>
>At 10:20 PM 11/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>***{I am interested in examining claims that fall outside the bounds of
>>contemporary, politically correct, loot funded, fad "science." However, I
>>prefer to deal with such claims from a rational perspective, using
>>scientific principles that have stood the test of time, and I prefer to
>>interact with knowledgeable, rational individuals who approach things from
>>a similar perspective. This is the only list I know of where those
>>conditions, to a significant degree, are satisfied. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>I think keeping to date on the SOHO 'Suncruiser' issue is interesting.
>Trying to force an explaination of these images may just get access shut off
>though.

***{Yup. That's why we should each save copies of all of these images, and
send them to everyone we can think of. If this stuff gets in the hands of
enough people, the attempt to cover it up will be hopeless. That way, even
if the vortex server starts replacing all of our messages with the NSA logo
before sending them out, the truth will still prevail. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>The lizard alien photo... well it looks like a 6' hardwood walking stick
>might disuade a few of them from introducing themselves to one's self at any
>rate.

***{I heard the man who came up with those photos tell his story on the Art
Bell show. He claims to have gone for a hike in the deep woods with his
dog. The dog ran ahead and disappeared over a hill. He then heard a
tremendous din, and when he came to the top of the hill, his dog had the
green alien by the arm. The alien then used some sort of energy weapon to
kill the dog, and the dog's owner at that point came up behind the alien
and smacked it on the head with a tree limb that he had picked up. In my
view, this is a tragic episode, if true, because the creature in that photo
has an expression of wisdom, kindness, and intelligence on his face. His
life is clearly worth more than that of a dog, and he was clearly acting in
self defense when he killed the dog. He was out in the woods, possibly a
tourist from another world, and minding his own business. Speaking as a dog
owner, of course, I can surely understand the man's reaction to the killing
of his dog, but this is a horrible, tragic episode nonetheless. If his dog
had attacked a man and, when the man shot the dog, he had bashed the man's
skull in from behind, he would have been tried for murder. Here, of course,
he has the excuse that he did not know that this creature was an
intelligent being. But it rings a bit hollow, since based on the photo, the
creature was wearing some sort of black clothing. If it is wearing clothes,
I think you should assume that it is a man. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>Dennis
>
>
>Tall Ships
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:04:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA21472;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:03:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:03:19 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <364BBAEE.D46082E mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:51:58 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (Off topic, sort of)
References: <364B7727.27AE interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QvEPT.0.QF5.dF0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24471
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:

3. I just purchased a book from Amazon.com as follows:
   "Electronic Devices and Circuits Using MICRO-CAP II"
      by  R. H. Berube
     for 24 bucks + S&H
which contains a nice tutorial on how to use this old
program.

4. I noticed that there is a 153 kB zip file containing this
program, located at the end of the following foreign-language
page:
 
http://houston.feld.cvut.cz/personal/bores/st/htmt/htm/mc2.htm

Hi Frank,

This is great detective work.  Amazon charged me
$32.60 for the book as of 11-13-98.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:08:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA23196;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:08:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:08:12 -0800
Message-Id: <199811131007.EAA29012 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:06:23 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"c1T9w3.0.Ag5.CK0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24472
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 12:10 AM 11/13/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>The kinetic furnace consists of an electric motor that turns a rotor, a
>>radiator, a squirrel cage fan, and a square duct. Water is heated in the rotor
>>compartment and cooled off in the radiator. The fan forces air through the
>>radiator and out the duct.
>[snip]
>
>You have the basic ingredients for a water flow calorimeter, or dual method
>calorimeter.  All you need is a water flowmeter in the water supply line
>plus two temperature probes in the water stream on either side of the rotor
>compartment.  It would provide some degree of cross-check, especially if
>calibrated by a pulse from a joule heater in the water intake line after
>the first temperature probe.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{This is an excellent suggestion, Horace. Going further, one could
remove the radiator and the blower motor, convert the gadget into the same
configuration as Griggs' Hydrosonic Pump, and test it the same way. Then
one wouldn't have to worry about the perversities of airflow measurements
and airflow calorimetry. If the numbers still came up indicating excess
heat, it would be harder to argue with them. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:11:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA23809;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:09:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:09:43 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b271b1098120 [12.64.37.206]>
In-Reply-To: <199811130050.SAA22689 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:06:21 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"mvwQY3.0.xp5.dL0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24473
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  Now that "Paul Dore" has apparently been proven to
   >  be the source of the "SETI hit" posts, he continues to
   >  attempt to divert attention from the only rational
   >  interpretation: that his SETI hit was real, the
   >  confirmations were real, the claims of NSA  coercion
   >  were real, *and that he is now denying the above
   >  because he is under duress*.

That is so ridiculous that I no longer believe in your sincerity regarding
this story. I think you're trolling the list.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:38:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA28940;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:38:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:38:16 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981113104516.00ea0608 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, 13 Nov 1998 05:45:16 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"zkJwF1.0.247.Nm0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24474
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:55 AM 11/13/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>The lizard alien photo... well it looks like a 6' hardwood walking stick
>>might disuade a few of them from introducing themselves to one's self at any
>>rate.
>
>***{I heard the man who came up with those photos tell his story on the Art
>Bell show. He claims to have gone for a hike in the deep woods with his
>dog. The dog ran ahead and disappeared over a hill. He then heard a
>tremendous din, and when he came to the top of the hill, his dog had the
>green alien by the arm. The alien then used some sort of energy weapon to
>kill the dog, and the dog's owner at that point came up behind the alien
>and smacked it on the head with a tree limb that he had picked up.

I didn't realize this was the claimed circumstances surrounding the supposed
alien photo. I want to appologize for kidding about self defense in this
case. Although I wonder what that lizard alien might have done next with
that energy weapon if this really happened?

> In my
>view, this is a tragic episode, if true, because the creature in that photo
>has an expression of wisdom, kindness, and intelligence on his face. His
>life is clearly worth more than that of a dog, and he was clearly acting in
>self defense when he killed the dog. He was out in the woods, possibly a
>tourist from another world, and minding his own business. Speaking as a dog
>owner, of course, I can surely understand the man's reaction to the killing
>of his dog, but this is a horrible, tragic episode nonetheless. If his dog
>had attacked a man and, when the man shot the dog, he had bashed the man's
>skull in from behind, he would have been tried for murder. Here, of course,
>he has the excuse that he did not know that this creature was an
>intelligent being. But it rings a bit hollow, since based on the photo, the
>creature was wearing some sort of black clothing. If it is wearing clothes,
>I think you should assume that it is a man. --Mitchell Jones}***


In the accounts of supposed alien interaction I've seen, the 'reptilian'
type aliens (and 'Greys') consider humans as a source of 'protein nutrition'.


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:45:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA31010;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:43:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:43:23 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b271b56b88a9 [12.72.131.92]>
In-Reply-To: <199811130321.VAA24843 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:39:58 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"w6OCd2.0.Sa7.Br0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24475
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  I am interested in examining claims that fall outside
   >  the bounds of contemporary, politically correct, loot
   >  funded, fad "science." However, I prefer to deal with
   >  such claims from a rational perspective, using
   >  scientific principles that have stood the test of time,
   >  and I prefer to interact with knowledgeable, rational
   >  individuals who approach things from a similar
   >  perspective. This is the only list I know of where
   >  those conditions, to a significant degree, are
   >  satisfied. --Mitchell Jones

Thank you for the vote of confidence. Now regarding Art Bell's latest
"alien photos", here's the "rational perspective using scientific
principles that have stood the test of time by a knowledgeable individual
who approaches things from a similar perspective" you wanted:

Halloween mask.

Thanks for helping to make Vortex what it is now to physicists like Britz,
Sevior, or Merriman. With them finally gone, the rest of us can just stay
on and blather endlessly about aliens and conspiracies just like on every
other internet list out there.

Good night, Mitchell.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:52:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA00670;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:50:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:50:09 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130304b271bd68693c [12.72.131.92]>
In-Reply-To: <199811130013_MC2-6017-F04D compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:46:50 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"08YRe1.0.NA.Xx0Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24476
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed -

Thank you for reporting this apparent huge excess energy experiment.

But what does it have to do with aliens?

. . .

Seriously, when will you get something running in Bow again? And would it
be considered, or even practical given the device's plumbing
considerations, to transport some barrels of water from Georgia (or ship
Bow water the other way) to try a comparison? Does anyone even think
anymore that the minerals or something in the water have anything to do
with it?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 02:58:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA02401;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:57:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 02:57:12 -0800
Message-ID: <005e01be0ef3$e419f220$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Best Offer Clearance Sale!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:53:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Llh5D1.0.Rb.721Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24477
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Troops:

I have in my possession and still in the box(due to fogged up glasses)an ITT
Jabsco 12 volt DC (Grainger No.4C814) Blower.

105 CFM   0.0" SP, 4200 RPM, 57 watts, 4.30 Amps, reinforced plastic flange
mount.
List $75.78, I paid $45.40 + tax.

Box about 10 inch cube, ready to ship to anyone that makes a reasonable
offer so I can store something else in it's place.

Regards,  Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 03:16:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06698;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:15:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:15:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199811131115.FAA29527 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:14:05 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"pAxmM2.0.We1.fJ1Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24478
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell -
>
>   >  Now that "Paul Dore" has apparently been proven to
>   >  be the source of the "SETI hit" posts, he continues to
>   >  attempt to divert attention from the only rational
>   >  interpretation: that his SETI hit was real, the
>   >  confirmations were real, the claims of NSA  coercion
>   >  were real, *and that he is now denying the above
>   >  because he is under duress*.
>
>That is so ridiculous that I no longer believe in your sincerity regarding
>this story. I think you're trolling the list.

***{Either that, or you are a typical conformist who is unable to think out
of the box. You assume that the government wouldn't order anyone to lie
about anything, and you treat that assumption as a proven fact. Result: you
consider it "ridiculous" that Paul Dore might be under duress. But, of
course, it isn't really ridiculous at all, once you break away from your
rigid assumptions. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of the
literature concerning UFO's and the activities of the "men in black."  Or
perhaps it would be useful for you to simply ask yourself what you would do
if some NSA black ops goons came to your house and, citing "national
security," ordered you to publicly argue--on this list, say--for a position
that you didn't believe in. Suppose, for example, they threatened to kill
you and your family, if you failed to carry out their instructions. What
would you do? You could go hire a lawyer and make a stink, of course, but
you wouldn't be able to prove a damn thing. They would label you a kook,
and all the closed minded conformists--people just like you--would believe
them and label your story as "ridiculous." And then when, a few months or
years later, you and your family were all killed in a "robbery" or an
"accident," nobody would be the wiser. So what would you do, Rick? Would
you stick to your principles and hire a lawyer, or would you do what they
told you to do? (Here's another idea: check out the movie "Mercury Rising,"
if you want an accurate portrayal not merely of NSA techies, but also of
NSA black ops goons.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 03:40:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA12785;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:39:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:39:40 -0800
Message-ID: <008901be0ef9$d148b040$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:36:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"cVlyS3.0.h73.xf1Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24479
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)

Hey Jones, why don't you take your Looney Toones Soapbox to an appropriate
list or Pershing Square in L.A. Sunday morning?

FJS


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 03:42:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA13239;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:41:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:41:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199811131140.FAA29730 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:39:39 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"1L8P42.0.nE3.ih1Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24480
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell -
>
>   >  I am interested in examining claims that fall outside
>   >  the bounds of contemporary, politically correct, loot
>   >  funded, fad "science." However, I prefer to deal with
>   >  such claims from a rational perspective, using
>   >  scientific principles that have stood the test of time,
>   >  and I prefer to interact with knowledgeable, rational
>   >  individuals who approach things from a similar
>   >  perspective. This is the only list I know of where
>   >  those conditions, to a significant degree, are
>   >  satisfied. --Mitchell Jones
>
>Thank you for the vote of confidence. Now regarding Art Bell's latest
>"alien photos", here's the "rational perspective using scientific
>principles that have stood the test of time by a knowledgeable individual
>who approaches things from a similar perspective" you wanted:
>
>Halloween mask.

***{If so, it's by far the best one I've ever seen. Where can I buy one?
You can answer that, can't you? Or are you just trolling? --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>Thanks for helping to make Vortex what it is now to physicists like Britz,
>Sevior, or Merriman. With them finally gone, the rest of us can just stay
>on and blather endlessly about aliens and conspiracies just like on every
>other internet list out there.

***{I'll grant that you are blathering, Rick, but that doesn't mean the
rest of us are. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Good night, Mitchell.

***{What's good about it? :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 04:09:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA19419;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:08:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:08:27 -0800
Message-Id: <199811131207.GAA29844 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:06:36 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kj1ot3.0.Ll4.w42Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24481
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:16 AM
>Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
>
>Hey Jones, why don't you take your Looney Toones Soapbox to an appropriate
>list or Pershing Square in L.A. Sunday morning?
>
>FJS

***{Hey, Sparber, why don't you take your boring mile-long attachments to a
list where people enjoy watching paint dry? --MJ}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 04:19:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA23026;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:19:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:19:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113072139.007e26e0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:21:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
In-Reply-To: <199811131207.GAA29844 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-5Cje3.0.ed5.2F2Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24482
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:06 AM 11/13/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:16 AM
>>Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
>>
>>Hey Jones, why don't you take your Looney Toones Soapbox to an appropriate
>>list or Pershing Square in L.A. Sunday morning?
>>
>>FJS
>
>***{Hey, Sparber, why don't you take your boring mile-long attachments to a
>list where people enjoy watching paint dry? --MJ}***



   PEACE.

"In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice
of the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks"
      [George Washington to Lafayette, 9/1/1778]


     Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 04:27:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA25271;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:26:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:26:12 -0800
Message-ID: <00a601be0f00$51ea9fa0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:22:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"SjyE_2.0.kA6.ZL2Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24483
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)


>At 07:06 AM 11/13/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>>>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:16 AM
>>>Subject: Re: Rick rises to SETI hit bait (was "Paul Dore" Admits...)

Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote.
>>>
>>>Hey Jones, why don't you take your Looney Toones Soapbox to an
appropriate
>>>list or Pershing Square in L.A. Sunday morning?
>>>
>>>FJS
>>
>>***{Hey, Sparber, why don't you take your boring mile-long attachments to
a
>>list where people enjoy watching paint dry? --MJ}***
>
>   PEACE.
>
>"In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice
>of the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks"
>      [George Washington to Lafayette, 9/1/1778]

Don't spoil it, Dr. Swartz, your mother wears
Combat Boots. :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>
>     Mitchell Swartz
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 05:05:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA03877;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:03:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:03:37 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113070410.0097e3e0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:04:10 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
In-Reply-To: <199811130013_MC2-6017-F04D compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"v47tG.0.Ry.eu2Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24484
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:10 AM 11/13/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>The water temperature rose rapidly, reaching 150 degrees Fahrenheit after 14
>minutes.

Do you happen to know the total quantity of water in the system, Jed?  That
might provide a useful reality check on the 160% excess.

>Pacer Industries, Inc. model DTA4000 impeller anemometer.

This instrument apparently reads directly in CFM, yet it can only be
measuring wind speed.  That means it has to be calibrated for a certain
duct size. Could you elaborate on this issue, please?

The machine shop environment explains the "200 volts".  It must be the
nominal 208 volts that you get between any two legs of a 120V-to-neutral
3-phase supply (i.e. 1.732*120).

Nice report, Jed.

160% is a fantastic result.  I agree with Horace's suggestion that
dual-method calorimetry should be employed here.  We are willing to
assemble the necessary equipment for the water-flow side of it and meet you
at Pope's place for your next series of tests.  



Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 05:28:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA09964;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:24:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:24:58 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981113133211.00e710f0 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, 13 Nov 1998 08:32:11 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CF thermoelectric converter?
Resent-Message-ID: <"X0BpO.0.VR2.fC3Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24485
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vo;

Are there any thermoelectric conversion devices suitable for CF?


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 06:01:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA22156;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:59:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:59:23 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113090103.007e8100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:01:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981113070410.0097e3e0 mail.eden.com>
References: <199811130013_MC2-6017-F04D compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ngg1f2.0.6Q5.xi3Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24486
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  At 07:04 AM 11/13/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:

>At 12:10 AM 11/13/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>The water temperature rose rapidly, reaching 150 degrees Fahrenheit after 14
>>minutes.
>
>Do you happen to know the total quantity of water in the system, Jed?  That
>might provide a useful reality check on the 160% excess.
>

 Good point. 
 
  Also,  what is the nature  and quantity 
of the stored heat discussed in the post?   

  Jed: "The kinetic furnace generated 60% excess heat, estimated
conservatively, for
two hours after the initial burst of stored up heat was released when the fan
was turned on. In previous tests, the furnace has run for longer periods with
sustained excess the entire time."

   How long was the "burst"?  
   How does one know that the heat storage was exhausted?
    Was a temperature-time profile obtained of the burst?  
    or long term cooling curves to determine the thermal 
      characteristics of the system?

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

>160% is a fantastic result.  I agree with Horace's suggestion that
>dual-method calorimetry should be employed here.

   Agree with the need for 
 Horace: "calibrat(ion) by a pulse from a joule heater in the 
  water intake line after the first temperature probe."

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 06:21:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA00503;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:19:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:19:52 -0800
Message-Id: <364C40FC.76C77DA0 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:23:56 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, VortexB <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Using VortexB for extended isuues
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"L4Fgn.0.i7.804Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24487
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi All,

If we restrict Vortex to CF experiments and related discussions, there are too many things fall to off-topic. But if we accept other scientific subjects and current issues could be discussible on this list, SETI, EQ-peg, alien interferences and technologi

es gov interferences and conspiracies in terms of scientific views can be discussed on this list. Actually, I believe and have convincible arguments that gov interference playing major role on on-going new-physics research issues. These are not could be i

gnored in conspiracy quotes. 

Unfortunately, these issues are not very welcome with many people or believed totally fiction or interpreted non-scientific. In this logic, CF, OU and other issues could be interpreted as fiction by other point of views. 

*** But! in point of CF research, vortex-L is a unique platform, so inserting too many "off-topic" or controversial subjects on this list is not fair, they have right to oppose and complain, IMO. ***

One solution to not disturb people who don't want to see these extended issues and wish to keep focus to CF related items is moving off-topic/extended issues to vortex-B list. Of course "off-topic" quotes could be freely used on both lists and anybody don

't want to "see" them simply have to use a mail filter.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 06:53:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA14091;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:52:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:52:50 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <364C47BE.1DE4FF74 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:52:46 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net> <3.0.5.32.19981112210925.00987820@mail.eden.com> <364BD075.128@ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"a8dNg1.0.1S3.1V4Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24488
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jim Ostrowski wrote:
> THIS LIST IS NOT THE PRIVATE DOMAIN OF CF ENTHUSIASTS.

...neither is it the company watercooler nor group therapy.  This is a science
and technology forum.  All other agendas should be discussed elsewhere on lists
created specifically to talk about such things.

> 2.Use your delete key or or filters as Mitchell suggested. 
> Otherwise bug off.

The discussion regarding the physics or interpretation of data behind SETI is
not in question.  Alien photo authenticity claims, because the photos "look
good", are.  Bug off yourself.  This is the wrong place for this crap and you
know it.

All that is being asked for is a little self control.

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 07:19:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA05200;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <364C4C9B.ABFD33E6 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:13:31 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811130321.VAA24843 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FkANt2.0.9H1.Ur4Js" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24489
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{I am interested in examining claims that fall outside the bounds of
> contemporary, politically correct, loot funded, fad "science." 

Me too.

> However, I
> prefer to deal with such claims from a rational perspective, using
> scientific principles that have stood the test of time, and I prefer to
> interact with knowledgeable, rational individuals who approach things from
> a similar perspective. 

Me too.

> This is the only list I know of where those
> conditions, to a significant degree, are satisfied. --Mitchell Jones}***

How do YOU fit in?......  I mean, you don't exactly emulate the criteria you
find so important, and your ongoing disregard for others who subscribe only
chases off the very people you wish to associate with.  How are you
accomplishing your goal?  

Just trying to understand.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets 
   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 07:40:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA01707;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:38:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:38:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199811131536.KAA29994 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:23:39 -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: <"YPnCC2.0.bQ.s95Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24490
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Rick,
 
> Seriously, when will you get something running in Bow again? And would it
> be considered, or even practical given the device's plumbing
> considerations, to transport some barrels of water from Georgia (or ship
> Bow water the other way) to try a comparison? Does anyone even think
> anymore that the minerals or something in the water have anything to do
> with it?


We have had two shipments of GA water tried and a lot of other types
without anything remarkable.  We have tried running water with a gas
pressurized head and saturated with argon.  We even tried orienting the
device wrt the earth's field the same as in GA.  This problem with it not
working at other locations has a history.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 07:44:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04443;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:41:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:41:56 -0800
Message-ID: <364C5254.8A3D9A5B bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:37:56 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Organization: Chaotic
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bh2Qy.0.L51.4D5Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24491
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

<snip>

> Indeed, the only thing that seems a bit
> implausible is the fact that, in the "obelisk" photo, none of the shrubbery
> in the foreground obscures any of the "obelisk"--which, if authentic, is
> some sort of personal spacecraft analogous to the automobile. Of course,
> the fact that none of the shrubbery intrudes between the camera and the
> "obelisk" is not really surprising: it is a photographer's instinct to go
> for the clear shot.

<snip>

This photo is an obvious fake.  Check the light sources.

Mitch, I suggest you join the Ufo Updates listserver.  Those people will
appreciate your postings more.  Send a subscription request to
updates globalserve.net

Terry

--
Copyright of my DNA is retained and may not be replicated in whole or in part
without expressed written permission.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 07:48:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07212;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811131536.KAA00103 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:40:01 -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: <"34F2o.0.bm1.ZH5Js" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24492
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> >The water temperature rose rapidly, reaching 150 degrees Fahrenheit
after 14
> >minutes.

This is actually much slower than other reports, but I have not witnessed
this sort of rise rate.

> This instrument apparently reads directly in CFM, yet it can only be
> measuring wind speed.  That means it has to be calibrated for a certain
> duct size. Could you elaborate on this issue, please?

The instrument reads in FPM.  The duct is 12" x 12".
> 
> The machine shop environment explains the "200 volts".  It must be the
> nominal 208 volts that you get between any two legs of a 120V-to-neutral
> 3-phase supply (i.e. 1.732*120).

That is correct.  I had him measure both legs to be sure that the blower
motor was not running one leg to ground.

> 160% is a fantastic result.  I agree with Horace's suggestion that
> dual-method calorimetry should be employed here.  We are willing to
> assemble the necessary equipment for the water-flow side of it and meet
you
> at Pope's place for your next series of tests.  

Dual calorimetry is planned, as explained in several previous posts of
mine.  We appreciate your support and offer of dual investigation.  Our
plan at present is for me to travel to GA with all of our relevant
equipment and perform more extensive tests.  As explained in previous
posts, this testing by Jed was for the purpose of establishing a high
probability of good results, as was the previous testing by Jed and Gene on
4/9/98.  Establishment of a firm result was to occur in Bow, but even when
the 3rd unit was delivered here by Ralph Pope, via a motorhome, with a good
deal of GA water and extra rotors, no such COP has been observed here, with
his help, as mentioned in my previous posts.

We ask that you hold off on your investigation until we have performed our
testing in GA.  The plan at present has me traveling to GA in about a week
for testing of unspecified duration with Jed's help.  We will be in
contact.  

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 09:04:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03523;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:02:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:02:33 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <364C5844.576B ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:03:16 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bill Beaty's" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
CC: 72240.1256 compuserve.com, ewall@infinite-energy.com
Subject: (RIGHT ON TOPIC)  Kinetic Furnace Test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"iZc_N2.0.zs.fO6Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24493
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 13, 1998

Vortex,

Nice effort on the K. Furnace test.

Jed's readings reminds me somewhat of his and 'Gene's tests with Grigg's
setup reported in Cold Fusion on excess energy. First time I heard of
excess energy coming out of approaches other than P&F.

Jed has reported that Pope 'overhauled' the pump after taking it back.
What was involved there? I can only surmise that any excess observed at
Pope's place and lack of it at Bow may be due to the difference in rotor
material used.
At the 1st MIT Mallove Symposium and at the ICCG-5, Griggs displayed
aluminum rotor destruction problems as the machine was run. There were
serious vortex wear and tear on those drilled holes in the aluminum
rotors. At the ICCF-5, Griggs displayed rotor parts which clearly showed
anolomous copper plating on the worn rotor parts, suggesting
transmutation considerations (and which may be the source of the excess
energy). I saw that Griggs changed his rotor to steel (non Al.) after I
had asked whether he considered something other than Al. for his rotor
such as steel. Perhaps he had the same realization at the same time. I
have not heard of rotor problems since then. Also not much reports of
excess energy either. The Griggs Hydrosonic Pump at Bow should be run
for performance, before and after dissambly and data comparisons.
The Kinetic Furnace' rotor shows, at the ICCF-6 poster, steel tubing
inserts where the rotor encounters the most turbulent action. This was
done after the same destructive effects were encountered by Pope's
machine. There are mechanical similarities between Griggs's and Pope's.
Yet, we do not know what was the actual construction of the over-unity
machines were. No before and after examination of the pump has been made
in the runs at Bow, or Jed's test, so far as I know. I would weigh the
rotors before and after the runs (heck weigh the whole unit :)). In the
latest run reported on by Jed, the pump needs to be examined to see what
changes that occurred there. The over-unity effect could be coming from
the pump literally 'feeding' on itself. If there are transmutation
effects, perhaps it could be isolated from the machine parts. Also, has
any pump been run to destruction by Pope? There were many damaged rotor
picters on the Poster. What were the average life of these rotors? Many
questions. I hope it all turns out for the positive.

-AK-

ps: Tried distilled water?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 09:13:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05155;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:07:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:07:05 -0800
Message-ID: <364C6843.746C earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:11:31 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: calorimeter artifact  11.13.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fe6ma1.0.OG1.uS6Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24494
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.11.98
  Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:53 -0400 (EDT)
  From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Dr. Storms,

I hope you don't mind my continued adherence to my pet theory for
awhile. I know you have discounted it, because you feel your work has
shown no gradients exist, but I am not as convinced yet.  In your reply
you mention several items that contrast with my point of view, and I
would like to try to address them and see if I can illustrate why I
still have a bit of faith in my picture.  

In the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of your response, you mentioned that
(numbering is for later reference):
(1)- recombination heat is 1.54*amps
(2)- D2 quickly moves heat to the cell wall
(3)- flow and isoperibol calorimeters don't suffer from gradient effects
(4)- bubble mixing removes gradients
(5)- %recombination at the electrode decreases with increasing current

Since no references were specifically stated, I went back to your 1993
Fusion Tech. paper (vol23, p. 232) as a starting point. (Are there any
other papers I should explicitly look at?)  You use a wide range of
currents, but the largest is 2.8 A, which by your equation (1) implies
4.31 W theoretically being deposited at the recombiner.  That puts an
upper limit on my "X". (Recall my model gives: Excess heat = Input heat
* transferred heat * kc*(k2-k1) ) 

Regarding (2), that is a manifestation of thermal conductivities .  My
read of Handbook data suggests that the conductivity of D2 is the lowest
of the main components of the cell excepting the Teflon (Pyrex, water,
D2 gas, Pt metal sheet, Teflon).  Increasing the technical depth of the
discussion may be worthwhile, but I don't feel point (2) is relevant to
my primary model. The non-homogeniety I postulate would have to develop
in light of the thermal conductivities.  To invalidate my postulate from
this point of view requires detailed heat transfer calculations, which
would have a raft of debatable assumptions in it.  I would prefer direct
experimental results with a calibration resistor as I suggested.  (But
perhaps I am overestimating the difficulties of 'theoretically'
rejecting my scenario?)

I note that your cell design does not have heat capture surface across
any of the cell top, and you have several penetrations through this
region for the usual connections and supports. Thus, my concern about
the gas space region having a potentially different heat capture
efficiency has physical grounds.  This seems to contradict your point
(3), and I suspect a bit of a semantics problem here.  The problem was
most likely promoted by my mention of bubbles in my first post, so let
me remind you that that was added as a possibly trivial second effect. 
You comment and the work you did in the paper both point out that
bubble gradients seem to be trivial when probed by temperature
distribution in the electrolyte (which means I will tentatively agree
with (4) in the context of what work was done).

However, that does not impact at all my main point of non-homogeneous
heat source distribution and differing heat capture efficiencies in
different parts of the calorimeter.  This is a concern that can affect
any calorimiter I believe.  In fact, I don't believe your '93 paper
drectly addreses this issue at all.  The fact that you added the Pt
sheet in contact with the recombiner indicates you acknowledge the
recombiner is a localized heat source. You found that removal of the
sheet did not alter the results, and you concluded that that
meant you had the recombiner heat fully distributed.

But I think there are possible alternative interpretaions of your
results. The first is the trivial one, namely, removing the Pt sheet had
no effect, so it was actually doing nothing!  This could easily occur if
thermal conductivity from the recombiner bed to the sheet was poor.  It
seems to me from your sketch that the recombiner was supported
separately.  How was the contact between the recombiner and the Pt sheet
made and maintained?  Can you comment on the contact geometry from the
extent of thermal contact point of view?

The second interpretation is more interesting.  It caused me to realize
I had some conceptual blinders on when I originally formulated my
scenario.  As you pointed out in your paper, the average calibration
equation is: 
             [DP =]  developed power (W) = .36 + (3.7 +.015Tj)delT

You say Tj is nominally 20C, and based on a delT of 12C as per your Fig.
5, I calculate DP = 48.4W. (Trivial note: there seenms to be a typo in
the Fig. 14 caption w.r.t. this number.)  Further, the recombination
heat is 4.3W, and the thermal conductivity of the Pt is approximately
50X that of the other materials I listed above.  So, I conclude that the
primary direction of heat transfer could well be from the _liquid_ to
the _gas_.  Thus "X" in my equation would have to be negative, and we
would see a 'negative' excess heat signal!  

Does this actually occur in your work?  Probably not, because removing
the sheet had no effect.  However, and this is a key realization, we now
also need to consider the case where the base condition ("X"=0) is
established from a physical reality that includes a heat source in the
liquid that could be relocated to the gas by some physical means during
the run.  One obvious specific candidate for this is recombination that
is occuring at one or both of the electrodes, but that is not the only
way a liquid-to-gas transfer scenario could be constructed.

Can we find any evidence of this occurring in your data?  Perhaps. Let's 
consider your Figure 11.  When I look at the data for selected currents,
I can visually take an 'average' (note that this is just a
'back-of-the-envelope' approach).  What I then get is the following
numbers:

Current(A):                   .13     .5    2.0    2.5    2.8
"Avg." Excess Power (W):      -.15    -.4   -.1    +.6   +1.0

Thus, to me there seems to be a dip in the excess power, which reaches a 
negative minimum value near 1A, and a subsequent increase with
increasing current beyond that.  

(I wonder if Figure 5 could be transformed to one similar to the one
Mike McKubre has in his EPRI report that seems to show a quadratic
increase in excess power with increasing loading (this is the plot shown
on John Logajan's Web page also).  The noise characteristics seem
similar.)

I can suggest that what might be occuring is my postulated shift in heat 
localization, and I might go further and implicate the extent of mixing.
At the higher currents the greater bubble flow should present more
electrolysis gases to the electrodes (generically, submersed
recombination sites), so recombination can easily be envisioned to be
more favored in the liquid in that situation.  Your point (5) is
probably correct, but my proviso to that is that at higher 
currents you are producing more heat at the recombiner, thereby allowing
a smaller relative percentage change in heat distribution to produce an
apparently large excess heat.

Why the negative dip occurs, I am not sure.  My scenario suggests that
some heat source has moved from the liquid to the gas, but I admit
difficulty in visualizing how this occurs.  Generically I could say
'mixing' I suppose. Was Figure 5 obtained with or without the Pt sheet
present?  Another possibilty might be the effectiveness of the
magnetically driven stir bar.  My experience suggests these things are
highly unreliable if overdriven or perturbed. They have a tendency to
jump up and fly around the vessel they are in.  Did you ever observe
this hapening?  What rpm are you stirring at, and does it vary?

It is interesting to note that this effect does not occur in the data
presented in Figure 7, which uses a Pt electrode instead of the Pd one.
Also your text comments on the fact that some Pd also behaves this way.
To me this implies that you are actually measuring a real effect.  My
scenario is focused on the concept that the interpretation you make of
the data neglects a possible controlling factor.  Technically speaking,
this causes your numerical scale to be off a bit, with the 'excess' heat
signal actually being the one that most closely approaches unity
perfprmance.

In the cases of no observed effect, the implication is that there was no 
relocation of localized heat sources.  This could be because it was
simply not possible, "it" possibly being recombination at the electrode.
And, I am now back to my underlying idea of a surface reaction mediated
by finite lifetime surface sites.  The absence of these sites in the
'dead' electrodes would explain their behavior.

I'm sure you have an explanation and comments on this, and I look
forward to reading them.

----------------------------
In the 3rd paragraph of your response, you state that the thermal
localization I invoke doesn't occur because:

(6)- you have placed thermistors in the gas space and seen nothing like
I propose
(7)- you have studied the mixing problem.

I would respond to (6) by saying that that may not be adequate.  If the
primary loss mechanism contributing to the different heat capture
efficiencies is conduction through penetrations, wouldn't the cell still
achieve steady-state, leading to very similar temperatures in the cell? 
Could you point me to the report where you discuss your gas phase
measurements?  (On an amusing level, I will reflect a comment I hear a
lot.  Not observing an effect doesn't prove it's not there.)

Re. (7), those studies I agree with, but they seem irrelevant to
addressing the issue of differing capture efficiencies, since they were
all focused in the liquid.

Re. the discussion of a stagnant layer at the walls, it seems irrelevant
to the efficiency issue as well.  (Which is NOT to say is is
unimportant.  It establishes a cell design and operation criterion.)

---------------------------
In the 4th paragaph of your response, you mention the Pt sheet, which I
have addressed above.  You also mention the Pyrex tube you use now. 
Pyrex's conductivity is much poorer than Pt, so you might expect to see
a slightly different behavior of course, but I can't say for sure what
to expect in detail, as the issue of the effect of the Pt sheet is not
resolved in my mind.  The idea of water droplets carrying heat from the
recombiner back to the liquid is just part of the overall steady-state
condition.  Alter it to effect an effective heat balance shift from the
nominal base case and you will get the problem I propose in my primary
scenario.

Again, my localized heat source proposal is a simple, linear one.  Most
of the issues we are dicussing in this note are complications to the
ideal version.  This is entirely what should be expected, and in fact
the introduction of non-linear factors should be expected as well
whenever one moves from an idealized view to a 'reality-driven' view.

---------------------------
In your 5th paragraph, I think you move to more philosophical points,
and I don't have any major problems with what you say.  I do reserve the
right to disagree at a later time if needed.

---------------------------
To quantify the situation, let's talk about your 50W input case with
4.3W of recombination heat, and let's  maximize the 'transfer effect' by
assuming "X" =4.3.  If the calorimeter collects 90% of the total heat,
my definition of kc means kc = 1.1 (=1/.9).  My model gives

    Excess Heat (W) = 4.3* 1.1 *(k2-k1) = 4.7*(k2-k1) (W) 

Recalling that k2 and k1 range from 0 to 1 in theory, clearly then the 
difference in capture efficiencies drives the size of the signal.  If
the cell has very equivalent heat captures in the two regions, the
excess heat from the 'transfer' of heat will be, in the limit of
perfection, 0.  If the gas phase region collects 10% less, we have an
excess heat signal of .47W or 470 mW.

Your results show up to 2.4W maximally.  So...is it that kc*(k2-k1) = .5
or do we have CANR?

I hope I have shown you some of why I am not ready to abandon my
scenario and my concerns.  The second calibration resistor I proposed
would seem to me to be the best way to address the issue.  It provides
another penetration through the cell that would provide a heat
conduction path for losses, and it would be a primary localized heat
source.  I realize noone has done this experiment yet, but I
still feel much could be learned from doing it.

Let's continue the discussion!

Kirk Shanahan  {{ My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 09:17:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08569;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:15:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:15:27 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113121622.00d11260 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:16:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Superluminal signalling]
Cc: jimostr ca-ois.com, Vortex-L <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <364BDB13.5CDD5C8A sunherald.infi.net>
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0r8Zy1.0.p52.la6Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24495
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:09 PM 11/12/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>I don't know, but the guys who run things (W. Heitmann, R. Chiao, etc.)
>claim that the signal velocity can exceed C, but can't transmit an
>intelligible signal. They also claim the front velocity never exceeds C.
>???

    The real question you have to keep asking is "which c?"   The Nimtz stuff
really actually involves some photons crossing the gap faster than higher
frequency photons.  (Of course, so does cromatic aberration, but Nimtz gets
several times c in free space.)  There is another way to get photons to move
significantly faster than the speed of light in a normal vacuum which is to
change the permeability.  This can be done with two closely spaced conducting
plates.  However, from the point of view of relativity, there are no
contradictions created--either think of it as changing the shape of space, or
that the speed of light is different in that region.  You still can't exceed
the speed of light limit, it's just that the speed limit has changed. 

 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 09:25:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12080;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:23:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:23:37 -0800
Message-ID: <009b01be0f2a$0558c7a0$a24accd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:29:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"CxbyR.0.gy2.Oi6Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24496
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A couple of people have noted that the KF configuration is a good setup for
water flow calorimetry, as is the Griggs machine.

The Griggs machine was tested by water flow calorimetry at Grigg's plant and
will be so tested at NERL.

I have discussed alternative calorimetry approaches for the KF with Gene and
Ed.

They are not appropriate yet. What the commentators are overlooking is a
***primary*** rule of verification:
REPLICATE THE ORIGINAL EXPERIMENT, NOT YOUR VARIATION OF IT. Gene, Jed, and
Ed are in a quandary. In good faith they went to Kinetic Technologies and
measured an operating system and found a COP high enough for Gene to put up
$12,000 to buy the unit.

The COP measured at NERL was disappointing. KT has shown good faith by
supplying replacement rotors, a replacement unit, and bringing a third unit
to NERL in Pope's own RV. None showed a COP at NERL as good as at KT. Reason
unknown.

The current tests reported by Jed are of a unit which Pope has in good
operating condition. The task at hand is to get better verification of this
at KT, and then try to find out what is different between the unit at NERL
and the unit at KT.

You **don't** change the configuration while doing this, in any way.
Obviously there is a hidden variable, like the material/active site problem
that has plagued the CF work all these years. The KF configuration is a
conservative expression of whatever mechanism is acting, for the delta T in
the airflow includes the losses in the rotor and blower motors. Dunking the
heat exchanger in a puddle of water and measuring the inlet, outlet and flow
rates is an obvious step in an R&D program.

You do this sort of thing is very small steps. As harmless as this seems, it
may not be so. What needs to be done is to have a system that works stably
and then characterize it, looking for internal phenomena such as sound
spectra that may be signatures of an operable configuration, as Ed Storms
can evaluate Pd cathodes for promise in CF cells.

Ed is making some small steps in this direction. At present there is neither
staff nor funding necessary to mount the required R&D project to understand
the KF.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 09:25:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12112;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:23:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:23:41 -0800
Message-ID: <009c01be0f2a$06a87920$a24accd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:35:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q-DX33.0.Az2.Ti6Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24497
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test


>Jed -
>
>Thank you for reporting this apparent huge excess energy experiment.
>
>But what does it have to do with aliens?
>
>. . .
>
>Seriously, when will you get something running in Bow again? And would it
>be considered, or even practical given the device's plumbing
>considerations, to transport some barrels of water from Georgia (or ship
>Bow water the other way) to try a comparison? Does anyone even think
>anymore that the minerals or something in the water have anything to do
>with it?
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


Rick, you haven't been paying attention to the story unfolding at Bow and
this is a very cheap shot. Water from Georgia has been shipped to NERL. You
haven't put up the money or effort to check out the KF. See another post by
me in reply to other comments from the gallery.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 10:41:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26864;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113123320.00768a68 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:33:20 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
In-Reply-To: <199811131536.KAA00103 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7n5UP2.0.gZ6.0o7Js" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24498
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:40 11/13/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:

>We ask that you hold off on your investigation until we have performed our
>testing in GA.  The plan at present has me traveling to GA in about a week
>for testing of unspecified duration with Jed's help.  We will be in
>contact.  

Very well.  Your measurements will either support Jed's or uncover some
subtle error associated with the GA setup.  I am happy to wait for such
progress.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 10:38:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10826;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:36:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:36:40 -0800
Message-ID: <364C83F1.2FEA ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:09:37 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Correction
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QG_pN2.0.0f2.tm7Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24499
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 13, 1998]

Vortex,

Correction on Kinetic Furnace poster piuctures. It was at the Vancouver
ICCF-7, not the ICCF-6. Losing track of the numbers.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 10:55:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19746;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:54:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:54:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113125356.00769bb4 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:53:56 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
In-Reply-To: <009b01be0f2a$0558c7a0$a24accd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0DbJc3.0.Mq4.-18Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24500
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:29 11/13/98 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote:

>What the commentators are overlooking is a
>***primary*** rule of verification:
>REPLICATE THE ORIGINAL EXPERIMENT, NOT YOUR VARIATION OF IT.

I wasn't talking about replication at all.  Apparently Pope is cooperative
so we have the much preferrable option of verification of the inventor's
claims using the original experiment.  Jed has made a good step in this
direction.  Ed is planning a more rigorous study.  

>The current tests reported by Jed are of a unit which Pope has in good
>operating condition. The task at hand is to get better verification of this
>at KT...

Right. If Ed's measurements support Jed's, I think the most prudent next
step is to verify the air-flow calorimetry with water-flow calorimetry on
the original experiment.  If the insertion of temp probes and a flowmeter
into Pope's water circuit kills the effect, that knowledge alone would be
worth the trouble.







Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 11:03:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23380;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:01:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:01:28 -0800
Message-ID: <364C8312.3D2F earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:05:54 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: New Scientist: Domen: H2O dissassociation via stirring  11.14.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------26BA752B41AC"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Tsir3.0.5j5.688Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24501
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.

--------------26BA752B41AC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/nsplit.html

--------------26BA752B41AC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="nsplit.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsplit.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/
	nsplit.html"

<BASE HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/nsplit.html">

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>New Scientist Planet Science: Stirred and shaken</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="333366" ALINK="#FFFFFF" VLINK="#333366">
<BASEFONT SIZE="4">


<CENTER>
<!--START NSPLUS MAIN NAVIGATION-->

<CENTER><FONT SIZE="-1">

<A target="_top" HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/home.html">HOME</A> <FONT SIZE="+1" COLOR="#AF0000">
<B>&#183;</B></FONT> 
<A target="_top" HREF="/ns/981114/contents.html"><B>NEW SCIENTIST</B></A> 
<FONT SIZE="+1" COLOR="#AF0000"><B>&#183;</B></FONT> 
<A target="_top" HREF="/nsplus/pluscontents.html">NS+</A>

<FONT SIZE="+1" COLOR="#AF0000"><B>&#183;</B></FONT> 
<A target="_top" HREF="http://www.newscientistjobs.com">JOBS</A>
<P><HR WIDTH="240">

<!--END NSPLUS MAIN NAVIGATION-->
<PRE>
</PRE>

<IMG WIDTH="118" HEIGHT="34" ALT="News" SRC="/ns/images/news2.gif">
<PRE>
</PRE>
<P>
<FONT COLOR="#AA0000" SIZE=+3>Stirred and shaken</FONT><P>

<FONT COLOR="#997700">Lila Guterman </FONT><BR>

<TABLE WIDTH="400">
<TR>
<TD WIDTH="400"><p align=left>
<FONT SIZE="+2">the words "mysterious" and "bizarre" </FONT> <FONT SIZE="4"> don't often come up in conversations among chemists. But that's how they are describing a way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen at room temperature using a simple catalyst.

 Japanese researchers now say that the energy needed to break the bonds that hold water molecules together seems to come from stirring the liquid. <P align=center>
<IMG SRC="/ns/981114/images/split.jpg" ALIGN=MIDDLE WIDTH="400" HEIGHT="148" HSPACE="1" VSPACE="1">
<P>When Kazunari Domen and his colleagues at Tokyo Institute of Technology first reported that a powdered cuprous oxide catalyst could split water at room temperature, chemists sat up and took notice (<a target="_top" href="/cgi-bin/pageserver.cgi?/ns/980

228/ncatalyst.html">This Week</a>, 28 February, p 10). This reaction usually takes place at 3000 &#176;C and is driven by light. If its efficiency could be improved, hydrogen would become much more attractive as a cheap, clean fuel. 
<P>

Domen initially thought that the energy driving the low-temperature reaction came from light--a mechanism chemists could just about live with. But now he reports that the reaction continues in the dark for hundreds of hours. The quicker the container is s

tirred, says Domen, the more hydrogen and oxygen are produced (<b>Chemical Communications</b>, p 2185).
<P>

Domen believes that the mechanical energy is converted to chemical energy without first being converted to thermal energy. "This is the first example of mechanical energy being converted into chemical energy by catalysis," he says. But Domen cannot explai

n how this works.
<P>

To most chemists, the idea is heresy. And the prospect of producing a source of fuel by a mechanism no one understands evokes memories of the "cold fusion" saga of 1989. But Domen's results were carefully reviewed before they were published. He has also a

voided making any bold claims about practical applications.

<P>

"A lot of colleagues were incredulous but I think Domen is a very serious scientist," says Michael Gr&auml;tzel of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. 
<P>

Gr&auml;tzel suspects that something more mundane is occurring, however, such as friction between the catalyst and the glass container causing a build-up of electrical charge. The resulting tiny sparks could break down small amounts of water. "There's an 

easy way to rule that out," he says. Dissolving a salt in the water would change its conductivity and the amount of gases produced. 
<P>

Arthur Nozik, a chemist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, doubts if the effect is really caused by catalysis. "I wouldn't be surprised if they are actually using up some of the metal oxide," he says. Nozik suspects that the 

cuprous oxide might react with water, liberating hydrogen. The oxygen could come from small quantities of the gas dissolved in the water. 
<P>

Domen says that less than 5 per cent of the energy from stirring appears to end up splitting water, producing a small amount of hydrogen and oxygen gas. But he thinks he can improve the yield by learning more about how the reaction works. "If we can incre

ase the efficiency by an order of magnitude, then it may be possible to think about practical applications," he says.
<P>

"It sounds odd, but maybe it only sounds odd because it's new," says Sean McGrady of King's College London. He likens the situation to the discovery in the 1980s that sound can drive chemical reactions, which has led to the burgeoning field of sonochemist

ry. "When these things show up they always challenge people's conceptions of how energy can get into a chemical reaction," says McGrady. "These reports take time to confirm or shoot down."
<P>


<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#AA0000" SIZE="2">From New Scientist, 14 November 1998</FONT></CENTER>

<PRE>
</PRE>


</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

<PRE></PRE>

<!--START BASEPAGE AD BANNER-->
<!--END BASEPAGE AD BANNER-->

<PRE></PRE>

<!--START PULLDOWN NAVIGATION BAR-->
<CENTER>

<BASE TARGET="_top">
<script language=javascript>
<!--
function nsJump()
{
	if (document.jumpForm.jump)
	{
		target = document.jumpForm.jump.options[document.jumpForm.jump.selectedIndex].value;
		if (target != "nought")
		{
			// alert("Jumping to: "+target);
			top.location = target;
			window.status = "Going to "+target+"...";
		}
		return false;
	}
	return true;
	
}

// -->
</script>
<BASE TARGET="_top">
<FORM 
	METHOD="POST" 
	name=jumpForm
	onSubmit="return nsJump()" 
	ACTION="/cgi-bin/jump.cgi" WIDTH="400">

<FONT SIZE="3">

<input type="hidden" name="jumpbase" value="http://www.newscientist.com">

<SELECT NAME="jump">

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/home.html">New Scientist Planet Science: Home

<option value="nought">_________________________

<option value="nought">

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/contents.html">NEW SCIENTIST Contents page

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientistjobs.com">New Scientist Jobs

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/editorial.html">Editorial

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/news.html">News

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/features.html">Features

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/review.html">Review

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/forum.html">Forum

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/letters.html">Letters

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/feedback.html">Feedback

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/lastword.html">The Last Word

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/archive.html">Planet Science archive

<option value="nought">_________________________

<option value="nought">

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/pluscontents.html">NS+ Contents

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/insight.html">Insight Special Reports

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/weird/weird.html">Bizarre Science

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/usa/bayarea/bayarea.html">Science in the Bay Area

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/lastword.html">Last Word Q & A Archive

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.keysites.com/keysites/keysites.html">Keysites

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/cdrom/cdrom.html">CD-ROM

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.science-books.com/sciencebooks/sciencebooks.html">Science Books

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/artspace/artspace.html">Artspace

<option value="nought">_________________________

<option value="nought">

<OPTION VALUE="/Architext/AT-whole_sitequery.html">Search the site

<option value="nought">_________________________

<option value="nought">

<OPTION VALUE="https://secure.ipc.co.uk/newscientist/subs/subscribe.html">Subscribe

<option value="nought">_________________________

<option value="nought">

<OPTION VALUE="http://www.newscientist.com/student">Planet Student

</SELECT><PRE></PRE>

<INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT VALUE="GO">

</FORM>

</CENTER>


<!--END PULLDOWN NAVIGATION BAR-->


<PRE></PRE>




<PRE>

</PRE>

<CENTER>
<!--START COPYRIGHT-->
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT SIZE="2">&copy;    </FONT><FONT SIZE="1">Copyright New Scientist, RBI Limited 1998</FONT></P>
<!--END COPYRIGHT-->
</CENTER>
<PRE></PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--------------26BA752B41AC--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 11:35:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03811;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:31:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:31:28 -0800
Message-ID: <364C8A1B.2309 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:35:55 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: IBM News: molecular rotor  7.24.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2CBD328725F5"
Resent-Message-ID: <"026tt2.0.Px.Ga8Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24502
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.

--------------2CBD328725F5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/07/24.phtml

--------------2CBD328725F5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="24.phtml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="24.phtml"
Content-Base: "http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/07/24.pht
	ml"

<BASE HREF="http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/07/24.phtml">

<HTML>
<HEAD><TITLE>IBM News</TITLE>

<STYLE TYPE="text/css"><!--
input#textfield {background: #ffffcc; color: #000000; font-size: 10; font-weight: normal;}
//-->
</STYLE>
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
<!--
window.name="HOMEPAGE";var ua="UA";ua=navigator.userAgent;function whichBrowser(){var br="BR";
if(ua.indexOf("NAV")!=-1){br="Navio"} if(ua.indexOf("Opera")!=-1){br="Opera"} if(ua.indexOf("MSIE")!=-1){br="IE"}
if((ua.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)&&((ua.indexOf('Spoofer')==-1)&&(ua.indexOf('compatible')==-1))){br="NS"}
return br}function whichVersion(br){var bv=0;bv=navigator.appVersion.substring(0,1);
if(br=="IE"){(parseInt(bv));}if(br=="NS"){(parseInt(bv));}return bv;}function whichPlatform()
{var os="OS";if((ua.indexOf("Win98")!=-1)||(ua.indexOf("Windows 98")!=-1)){os='win32_98'}
if((ua.indexOf("Win95")!=-1)||(ua.indexOf("Windows 95")!=-1)){os='win32_95'}
else if((ua.indexOf("WinNT")!=-1)||(ua.indexOf("Windows NT")!=-1)){os='win32_NT'}
else if((ua.indexOf("Win16")!=-1)||(ua.indexOf("Windows 3.1")!=-1)){os='win16'}
else if((ua.indexOf("Macintosh")!=-1)||(ua.indexOf("Mac")!=-1)){os='Mac';}else if(ua.indexOf("SunOS")!=-1){os='unix sun'}
else if(ua.indexOf("IRIX")!=-1){os='unix sgi'}else if(ua.indexOf("HP-UX")!=-1){os='unix hp'}
else if(ua.indexOf("AIX")!=-1){os='unix ibm'}else if(ua.indexOf("OS/2")!=-1){os='os/2'}else if(ua.indexOf("Linux")!=-1){ os='linux';}
return os;}b=whichBrowser();v=whichVersion(b);o=whichPlatform();
function miniwinpopup(w, h, myurl, targetstring, l, t)
{var popup=new Object();popup.w=w;popup.h=h;popup.l=l;popup.t=t;popup.url=myurl;popup.trgt=targetstring;
if((b=="IE")||(v==2)){window.open(popup.url,popup.trgt,
"width="+popup.w+",height="+popup.h+",resizable=1,status=0,left="+popup.l+",top="+popup.t+",menubar=0,scrollbars=1,toolbar=0,location=0,directories=0")}
else {window1=window.open(popup.url, popup.trgt,         "width="+popup.w+",height="+popup.h+",resizable=1,status=0,left="+popup.l+",top="+popup.t+",menubar=0,scrollbars=1,toolbar=0,location=0,directories=0");
window1.focus();}}function searchField(){empty="";
s1='<TABLE WIDTH=132 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 ALIGN="TOP"><TR><TD WIDTH=132 COLSPAN=4><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=41 ALIGN="left" HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Search "></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=7 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="6666

66">';
s2='<IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_1.gif" WIDTH=7 HEIGHT=28 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0></TD><TD WIDTH=88 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="666666"><FORM METHOD=GET ACTION="http://www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/findit/nph-V8.2" onSubmit="subsearch(this.q.value); return false;"><FONT F

ACE="Arial, Helvetica" SIZE=-1 POINT-SIZE="9">';
sie2='<IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_1.gif" WIDTH=7 HEIGHT=29 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD><TD WIDTH=88 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="666666"><FORM METHOD=GET ACTION="http://www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/findit/nph-V8.2" onSubmit="subsearch(this.q.value); return false;

"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica" SIZE=-1 POINT-SIZE="9">';
sunix2='<IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_1.gif" WIDTH=7 HEIGHT=39 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD><TD WIDTH=88 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="666666"><FORM METHOD=GET ACTION="http://www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/findit/nph-V8.2" onSubmit="subsearch(this.q.value); return fals

e;"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica" SIZE=-1 POINT-SIZE="9">';
s3='</FONT><BR><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/c.gif" WIDTH=88 HEIGHT=2 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD><TD WIDTH=21 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="666666"><A HREF="javascript:subsearch(document.forms[0].q.value);" onClick="subsearch(document.forms[0].q.value); return fa

lse;" onMouseOver="document.images[&#34;go_button&#34;].src= arrow_img.src;self.status=&#34;Go&#34;;return true;" onMouseOut="document.images[&#34;go_button&#34;].src = go_img.src;"><IMG NAME="go_button" SRC="/i/v8.2/go_text.gif" BORDER="0" WIDTH="21" HEI

GHT="18" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ALIGN="LEFT" ALT=" Go "></A></TD></FORM>';
s4='<TD WIDTH=16 VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_2.gif" WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=28 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD></TR></TABLE>';
sie4='<TD WIDTH=16 VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_2.gif" WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=29 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD></TR></TABLE>';
sunix4='<TD WIDTH=16 VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_2.gif" WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=39 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""></TD></TR></TABLE>';
i1='<input NAME="q" ID="textfield" type="text"  size="';
i2='"onFocus="document.forms[0].elements[0].value=empty">';p1=s1+s2+i1;p2=i2+s3+s4;if(b=="Opera"){return(s1+sunix2+i1+7+i2+s3+sunix4);}if(b=="Navio"){return(p1+10+p2);}
if(((o=="win32_98")||(o=="win32_95"))&&(b=="NS")&&(v>=4)) {return(p1+7+p2);}if(((o=="win32_98")||(o=="win32_95"))&&(b=="IE")&&(v>=4)) {return(p1+14+p2);}
if (((o=="win32_98")||(o=="win32_95"))&&(b=="NS")){return(p1+10+p2);}if((o=="win32_98")||(o=="win32_95")){return(p1+12+p2);}if((o=="Mac")&&(b=="NS")){return(p1+11+p2);}
if((o=="Mac")&&(b=="IE")&&(v>=4)){return(p1+13+p2);}if((o=="Mac")&&(b=="IE")){return(s1+sie2+i1+13+i2+s3+sie4);}
if(o=="os/2"){return(p1+15+p2);}if((o=="unix ibm")||(o=="unix sun")||(o=="unix sgi")){return(s1+sunix2+i1+11+i2+s3+sunix4);}if(o=="unix hp"){return(s1+sunix2+i1+6+i2+s3+sunix4);}if(o=="linux"){return(s1+sunix2+i1+7+i2+s3+sunix4);}if((o=="win32_NT")&&(b=="

IE")){return(p1+14+p2);}if((o=="win32_NT")&&(b=="NS")){return(p1+6+p2);}
if(o=="win16"){return(p1+11+p2);}{return(p1+6+p2);}}
if((document.images)&&((b=="NS")||(v==4)))
{var arrow_img= new Image();arrow_img.src = "/i/v8.2/go_arrow.gif";var go_img = new Image();go_img.src="/i/v8.2/go_text.gif"};function subsearch(s){var formstr="";for (count=0 ; count <= s.length ; count++){if(s.substring(count,count+1)==" "){formstr+="+"

;} else if(s.substring(count,count+1)=="\""){formstr+="\%22"}
else if(s.substring(count,count+1)=="\+"){formstr+="PLUS"}
else{formstr+=s.substring(count,count+1);}};searchurl=("http://www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/findit/nph-v8.2?q=");
remote = miniwinpopup(322,360,searchurl+formstr,"SEARCH",140,160);}var site = null;var gt=unescape('%3e');
function launch(){site= miniwinpopup(175,115,'http://www.ibm.com/IBM/Stock/Ticklet/Frame','ibmstock',140,160);
if (site != null){if(site.opener==null){site.opener=self;}}}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff" LINK="00006b" VLINK="56089f" ALINK="00006b">
<!--***************START GLOBAL NAVIGATION TABLE*********************--><!--MASTHEAD--><IMG SRC="/News/images/masthead.gif" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=49 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" ALT="IBM News"><BR CLEAR="all"><TABLE WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=17 BORDER=0 CELLP

ADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 VALIGN=top><TR HEIGHT=17><TD 
COLSPAN=2><A 
HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/h_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ Home ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=78 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/News/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/n_h.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ News ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=77 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/Products/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/p_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ Products &amp; services]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=129 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/Support/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/su_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ Support ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=79 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/Solutions/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/so_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ Solutions ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=79 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/Partners/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/pa_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ Partners ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=79 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A><A 
HREF="/IBM/" onMouseOver="self.status='About IBM' ;return true"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.4/ai_b.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="[ About IBM ]" ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=79 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></A></TD></TR></TABLE>


<!--*****************END GLOBAL NAVIGATION TABLE********************-->
<TABLE WIDTH=600 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 VALIGN="left">
<TR><!--**********SEARCH CONSOLE************-->
<TD WIDTH=132 VALIGN="TOP"><SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"><!--           
if((b=="IE")||(o=="os/2")||(v>2)){document.write(searchField());}
if(((o=="Mac")&&((b=="IE")||(b=="NS"))&&(v==3))||((v==2)&&(b!="IE"))||(((o=="win32_NT")||(o=="win32_95"))&&(b=="IE"))){}
else{document.forms[0].elements[0].focus()}		
//-->
</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><A HREF="/Search/"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/searchns2.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=41 ALIGN="left" HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Search "></A><BR CLEAR="all"></NOSCRIPT>

<IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/search_strip.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=4 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""><A HREF="/Shop/" onMouseover="self.status='Shop';return true"><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_shop_b.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=20 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Shop "></A><A HREF="/Contact/" onMouseover="self.status='Contact IBM';return true"><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_contact_b.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=19 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Contact IBM "></A><A HREF="/Download/" onMouseover="self.status='Download';return true"><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_download_b.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=21 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Download "></A><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_non.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=4 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=""><A HREF="/Planetwide/Popups/other/"TARGET="PROJECTS" onMouseOver="self.status='Select a country'; return true" onClick='miniwinpopup(298,348, "/Planetwide/Popups/other/", "P

ROJECTS",140,160); return false;'><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_select.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=27 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALT=" Select a country "></A><A HREF="javascript:launch()" onMouseOver="window.status='Stock quote'; return true"><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/search_stock.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=33 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" ALT=" Stock quote "></A><!--***TICKER TABLE NEST***-->
<TABLE WIDTH=132 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 VALIGN="left">
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=5 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="000000"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/clear.gif" WIDTH=5 HEIGHT=10 ALIGN="left" HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 alt=""></TD>
<TD WIDTH=117 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="000000"><FONT SIZE=-2 FACE="arial, helvetica, geneva" COLOR=CC33CC>$156.312 &nbsp; Down $1.562</FONT><BR>
   <FONT SIZE=-2 FACE="arial, helvetica, geneva" COLOR=FFFFFF><I>November 13, 1998<BR>     
    14:07</I></FONT></TD>
		
<TD WIDTH=10 VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="666666"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/right_ticker.gif" WIDTH=10 HEIGHT=59 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" alt=""></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!--***END TICKER TABLE NEST***--><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/under_ticker1.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=7 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" alt=""><IMG SRC="/News/images/shadow.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=4 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" alt=""><!--**** STRETCH BL

UE SPACE HERE!! *****--><IMG SRC="/News/images/stretch.gif" WIDTH=132 HEIGHT=46 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top" alt=""><!--**** end STRETCH BLUE SPACE HERE!! *****--><A HREF="/Privacy/" onMouseover="self.status='Privacy';return true"><IMG 
SRC="/i/v8.2/privacy.gif" WIDTH=91 HEIGHT=17 ALT=" Privacy " HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 ALIGN="top"></A><A HREF="/Legal/" onMouseover="self.status='Legal';return true"><IMG SRC="/i/v8.2/legal.gif" WIDTH=41 HEIGHT=17 ALT=" Legal " HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=

0 ALIGN="top"></A><!--*****END SEARCH CONSOLE*****--></TD>
<!--********* MAIN CONTENT **********--><TD WIDTH=468 VALIGN="TOP">
<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 WIDTH=468>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=468 COLSPAN=2 VALIGN=TOP><IMG SRC="/News/images/curved_top_strip.gif" WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=17 align=top VSPACE=0 HSPACE=0 border=0 alt="">
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD WIDTH=15 VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="/News/images/clear.gif" WIDTH=15 HEIGHT=10 BORDER=0 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 alt=""></TD>
<TD WIDTH=453  VALIGN="TOP">
<FONT FACE="arial,HELVETICA,GENEVA" size=+1>
IBM scientists help discover "molecular wheels" -- a breakthrough for designing nanoscale devices</font>
<FONT FACE="arial,HELVETICA,GENEVA" size=-1>
<!--INSERT STORY CONTENT-->
<p>
<TABLE border=0 ALIGN="RIGHT" CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 HSPACE=5 vspace=5 WIDTH=233> 
<tr><td><img src="/News/1998/07/images/wheela.gif" align="right" alt="[Six-lobed 'propeller molecule']"></td></tr>
<tr><td><FONT FACE="arial,HELVETICA,GENEVA" size=-2>
Two STM images show a hexa-butyl decacyclene (HB-DC) molecule marked by an inner ring in an immobilized state (at left) and in a rotating state (at right).</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
On July 24, IBM scientists and a team of international collaborators reported the discovery of "molecular wheels":  propeller-shaped molecules that rotate rapidly in a bearing-like structure formed by surrounding molecules. The scientists believe this une

xpected phenomenon shows great promise for the development of molecular mechanical devices and further demonstrates the validity of using single molecules to perform the various functions required in such devices. 
<p>
In a paper published in Science, IBM's <a href="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/">Zurich Research Laboratory</a>, together with colleagues at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Toulouse, and the Riso National Laboratory in Roskilde, De

nmark, report their design of the propeller-shaped molecules which can switch between two states -- rotating and immobilized, and the high-speed molecular rotation which they observed by using a scanning tunneling microscope (STM). 
<p>
"Our discovery of the molecular wheel came about from recent molecular switch experiments in which we were investigating a reversible change in the shape of specifically designed molecules triggered by a voltage pulse from the STM tip," said James Gimzwes

ki, who leads the nano-engineering effort at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory. "We believe that compared to other proposed or synthetic molecular mechanisms, the molecular wheel, which works in a dry state and appears to be wearless, is advantageous for c

reating gears and motors at the nanoscale level."
<p>
<TABLE border=0 ALIGN="RIGHT" CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 HSPACE=5 WIDTH=300> 
<tr><td><img src="/News/1998/07/images/fig3d.gif" align="right" alt="[Computer generated model of rotating molecule]" hspace=10></td></tr>
<tr><td><FONT FACE="arial,HELVETICA,GENEVA" size=-2>
Computer graphical view of rotating molecule.</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
In viewing the STM images, the researchers found a ring-like object instead of the molecule that had been there. The object, now in a slightly different position, shifted by just one-fourth of a nanometer. It evidently jumped into a tiny space left vacant

 by an irregularity in the molecular layer and thus escaped the immobilizing grip of four molecules that surrounded it closely on one side. An adjacent molecule on the other side confined its further lateral motion and, in effect, contributed to forming a

 bearing for rotation of the central molecule.
This rotation was responsible for the blurred, ring-like appearance of the molecule in the STM image. Researchers at CNRS calculated the behavior of the molecular wheel. Such wheels may someday become the smallest conceivable components of molecular engin

es. 
</font><p>
</TD></TR>	
</TABLE><!--********* end MAIN CONTENT **********--><!--**Don't move***--></TD><!--****Don't move***-->
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--------------2CBD328725F5--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 11:36:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA06217;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:34:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:34:49 -0800
Message-ID: <364C8ADF.7E8C earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:39:12 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: IBM Zurich: molecular rotor  7.24.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------117A748B273A"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8iVfx2.0.0X1.Nd8Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24503
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.

--------------117A748B273A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/

--------------117A748B273A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Base: "http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/"

<BASE HREF="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/">

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
   <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
   <META NAME="Author" CONTENT="webmaster zurich.ibm.com">
   <META NAME="Classification" CONTENT="public">
   <META NAME="abstract" CONTENT="IBM Zurich Research Laboratory news">
   <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="Zurich ZRL IBM science research technology news STM molecule propeller">
<TITLE>Molecular wheel</TITLE>
</head>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#990066" ALINK="#FF0000">
<IMG SRC="/images/Mastheads/masthead_News.gif" ALT="IBM Zurich Research News" BORDER=0
WIDTH="600" HEIGHT="54" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" Align="top">
<!--GLOBAL NAVIGATION-->
<table WIDTH="600" HEIGHT="17" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" VALIGN="BOTTOM">
  <tr HEIGHT="19"><td VALIGN="BOTTOM" ALIGN="TOP"><a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/">
        <img
    SRC="/images/nav/h_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Home ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="92" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/News/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/n_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ News ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="67" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Products/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/p_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Products ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="86" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Support/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/su_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Support ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="83" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Solutions/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/so_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Business solutions ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="89"
    HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Partners/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/pa_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Partners ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="84"
    HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/IBM/"
    onMouseOver="self.status='About IBM' ;return true"><img SRC="/images/nav/ai_b.gif"
    BORDER="0" ALT="[ About IBM ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="99" HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td WIDTH="600" BGCOLOR="#000000"><img SRC="/images/clear.gif" BORDER="0" WIDTH="600"
    HEIGHT="9" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" VALIGN="top"></td></tr>
</table>
        <a HREF="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/"><img
    SRC="/images/gotozrlhome.jpg" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Goto ZRL Home ]"></a>

<!--end GLOBAL NAVIGATION-->

<P>
<H1>Discovery of  Molecular Wheel Offers Promise for Design of Nanoscale Devices</H1>
<p><i>Zurich, Switzerland/Toulouse, France, July 24, 1998 --</i> IBM scientists
and a team of international collaborators today reported the discovery of
&quot;molecular wheels&quot;: propeller-shaped molecules that rotate rapidly in a
bearing-like structure formed by surrounding molecules. The scientists
believe this unexpected phenomenon shows great promise for the development
of molecular mechanical devices and further demonstrates the validity of
using single molecules to perform the various functions required in such
devices.
<p>In a paper published today in <i><a href="07.24.covera.gif">Science</a></i>, IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory,
together with colleagues at the French National Center for Scientific
Research (CNRS) in Toulouse, and the Riso National Laboratory in Roskilde,
Denmark, report their design of the propeller-shaped molecules which can
switch between two states -- rotating and immobilized, and the high-speed
molecular rotation which they observed by using a scanning tunneling
microscope (STM).
<p>&quot;Our discovery of the molecular wheel came about from recent molecular
switch experiments in which we were investigating a reversible change in
the shape of specifically designed molecules<sup>*</sup> triggered by a voltage pulse
from the STM tip,&quot; said James Gimzweski, who leads the nano-engineering
effort at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory. &quot;We believe that compared to
other proposed or synthetic molecular mechanisms, the molecular wheel,
which works in a dry state and appears to be wearless, is advantageous for
creating gears and motors at the nanoscale level.&quot;
<p>In viewing the STM images, the researchers found a ring-like object instead
of the molecule that had been there. The object, now in a slightly
different position, shifted by just one-fourth of a nanometer. It evidently
jumped into a tiny space left vacant by an irregularity in the molecular
layer and thus escaped the immobilizing grip of four molecules that
surrounded it closely on one side. An adjacent molecule on the other side
confined its further lateral motion and, in effect, contributed to forming
a bearing for rotation of the central molecule. This rotation was
responsible for the blurred, ring-like appearance of the molecule in the
STM image.
<p>Researchers at CNRS calculated the behavior of the molecular wheel. &quot;Our
calculations show that the thermal energy at room temperature is sufficient
for the molecule to rotate in a bearing formed by irregularity in the
molecular layer as observed, whereas the proximity of molecules in a fully
ordered lattice stops such movement,&quot; said Christian Joachim, who heads the
theoretical effort at CNRS. Such wheels may someday become the smallest
conceivable components of molecular engines.
<p>In 1995, IBM Zurich scientists precisely positioned individual molecules at
room temperature for the first time ever. This led in the following year to
their creation of an abacus with &quot;beads&quot; made of single ball-shaped
molecules to demonstrate new nano-engineering capabilities and,
subsequently, to the realization of an amplifier having a single molecule
as its active part. The enabling tool for this research is the STM,
invented at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory in the early eighties. The
STM's ultrafine tip can be used not only to image a surface with atomic
resolution, but also to manipulate individual atoms and molecules.
<p>The authors of the scientific report published in <i><a href="07.24.covera.gif">Science</a></i> (July 24, 1998)
are James K. Gimzewski, Reto R. Schlittler, and Veronique Langlais of IBM's
Zurich Research Laboratory, Christian Joachim and Hao Tang of CEMES (Center
d'Elaboration de Materiaux et d'Etudes Structurales) at CNRS, and Ib
Johannsen of the Condensed Matter Physics and Chemistry Department at
Riso National Laboratory in Roskilde, Denmark. The project is supported by the
European Union ESPRIT project &quot;Nanowires&quot;, which is partially funded by the
Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science.
<p><sup>*</sup> <font size="-1">The molecules which were used in these experiments are hexa-butyl
decacyclene (HB-DC) with a diameter of about 1.75 nanometers. They consist
of a central conjugated decacyclene core with six t-butyl legs attached to
its peripheral antracene components.</font>
<p><a href="wheel.tif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 1" src="wheel.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 1:
Two STM images on top show a six-lobed 'propeller' molecule marked by an
inner ring in an immobilized state close to four sister molecules (at left)
and in a rotating state when shifted away by one-fourth of a nanometer (at
right). The graphical view of the computer simulation (bottom) illustrates
the structure and the two positions of the molecular wheel.
<p><a href="propeller.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 2" src="propicon.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 2:
Animation of 'propeller' molecule (click on image to start animation).
<p><a href="ofig3a.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3a" src="fig3a.gif"></a><a href="ofig3b.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3b" src="fig3b.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 3 a-b:
STM view of the single molecule immobilized and rotating.
<p><a href="ofig3c.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3c" src="fig3c.gif"></a><a href="ofig3d.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3d" src="fig3d.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 3 c-d:
Computer graphical view.

<p>
<HR>
<ADDRESS>Communications, <A HREF="/~hug/">Martin Hug</A> <A HREF="mailto:hug zurich.ibm.com">&lt;hug@zurich.ibm.com&gt;</A></ADDRESS>
<BR>

Last modified: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 14:33
<HR>

<!--IBM BOTTOM NAV-->
<TABLE WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0
CELLSPACING=0 VALIGN="TOP"><TR HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0><TD
COLSPAN=2 VALIGN=TOP ALIGN=TOP><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Privacy/"><img
src="/images/nav/privacy_c.gif" ALT="[ Privacy ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=151
HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Legal/"><img src="/images/nav/legal_c.gif"
ALT="[ Legal ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0
VSPACE=0></a><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Search/"><img src="/images/nav/search_c.gif" ALT="[ Search ]"
BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a>
<a href="http://www.ibm.com/Contact/"><img src="/images/nav/contact_c.gif" ALT="[ Contact ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT
WIDTH=149 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a></TD></TR></TABLE>




--------------117A748B273A--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 11:41:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08812;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:40:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:40:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113143805.007ba7c0 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:38:05 -0500
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: New Scientist: Domen: H2O disassociation via stirring 
  11.14.98
In-Reply-To: <364C8312.3D2F earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"x_3j93.0.X92.ni8Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24504
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:05 PM 11/13/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote: 

>>>>

<excerpt>http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981114/nsplit.html 


</excerpt><center>I sure missed out on a catalyst, but I thought that was
what Mr. ZPEnergy was doing, ( if he were for real ) only I thought he
was using water *vapor* in a vortex tube instead of water [or air].
Sonochemistry eh? I didn't realize that classification existed, but it
seemed reasonable that the 'sounds' made in a vortex tube would only
enhance the effect. 


The article says the efficiency increases with the amount of stirring. 

With a gas, a vortex tube can achieve *extreme* rpm.


Best,

Colin Quinney.


</center>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 11:43:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10886;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:42:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:42:30 -0800
Message-ID: <364C8CB2.5B36 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:46:58 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Gimzewski: molecular rotor summary  7.24.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Ty8_3.0.0g2.ak8Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24505
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Molecular rotor

In the first paper summarized in this section J.K. Gimzewski et al.,
writing in [Science 281:531-533
24Jul98] describe the observation of a molecular rotor operating within
a void in a 2-D lattice. 

The authors evaporated a propeller-shaped molecule, hexa-tert-butyl
decacyclene (HB-DC) on a
clean Cu(100) surface. HB-DC contains a core of ten fused aromatic
rings, centered on a single
benzene ring, with 3-fold rotational symmetry. HB-DC's core is lifted
off the copper surface by six
bulky saturated hydrocarbon tert-butyl, (CH3)3C- legs. HB-DC molecules
have a diameter of
roughly 1.5 nm. 

When much less than a single layer of HB-DC covers the copper surface,
the molecules diffuse so
rapidly that they cannot be seen in STM images. While rotational
symmetry of HB-DC is 3-fold, the
perimeter of the molecule is close to hexagonal. When a full monolayer
is deposited on a copper
surface, the molecules form a hexagonal lattice. Under these conditions
the legs of the molecules can
be seen in an STM image as distinct dots. The molecule as a whole is
seen as "six lobes arranged in
a hexagonal lattice [sic] with alternating distances of 0.6 and 0.8 nm
between the lobes." 

The authors observed that at just less than a monolayer's coverage,
"there is a random array of
nanoscopic voids in the [HB-DC] layer... In these voids - and only there
- we observed images of
certain individual molecules with the expected overall dimensions of the
six-lobed species but
displaying internal contrast in the form of a torus." They go on to
explain that molecules which are in
contact with four of their neighbors and aligned with their normal
lattice position are locked into
position, while slipping the molecule 0.26 nm away from its neighbors
lets it rotate, much like a
poorly gripped hex nut can slip in a crescent wrench. 

The authors did a molecular mechanics simulation of the rotational
barriers seen by a HB-DC when
aligned with 4 neighbors, and when slipped out 0.26 nm. They calculated
that the aligned molecule
saw a barrier of 117 kJ/mol, which is sufficient to lock it in place,
but the displaced one saw a
barrier of only 29 kJ/mol, which is low enough to permit rotation. Note
that even the lower barrier is
still >kT. The barrier is low enough to permit rotation which is much
faster than STM imaging (in
fact, faster than is visible in tunneling current frequency spectra up
to 30 kHz), but this is not yet
quite so finely tuned as to bring barriers below kT. 

While the observed rotation is driven by thermal noise, the authors
suggest that added non-thermal
noise, such as temperature differences produced by tunnel current
heating of the rotor, could be
rectified by asymmetries in the rotor/neighbor potential energy curve,
and could turn the rotor
unidirectionally. 

These experiments demonstrate that Van der Waals bearings can indeed
operate in molecular
systems, that we are not limited to sigma bond bearings but can build
multiatomic bearing surfaces
with higher load capacities, that these bearings can run with no
lubricants, and that they have
sufficiently low barriers that thermal vibrations can turn them. 

For more information, see
http://www.foresight.org/hotnews/index.html#MolRotorSTM .

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 12:08:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22355;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:06:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:06:16 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:02:35 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811131505_MC2-601D-ABCF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"DKLnh3.0.5T5.t49Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24506
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A number of people made helpful comments here. Thank you. Before I respond,
let me post this correction. Conclusion #1 should read:

1. To measure again in Cumming, Georgia with improved instrumentation and
automatic data recording. Much more attention must be paid to input power
measurement, which was done in a cursory manner in this test. However, it
seems unlikely that this is a source of an error, because the motors for the
rotor and fan are not likely to draw 60% more power in Georgia without burning
out or producing much more wind, yet we saw a similar volume of air in Bow.

(Regrettably, I cannot blame the mistakes in the previous version on NatSpeak
voice input. I typed that particular paragraph the old-fashioned way.)


Horace Heffner wrote:

    You have the basic ingredients for a water flow calorimeter, or dual
    method calorimeter.  All you need is a water flowmeter in the water
    supply line plus two temperature probes in the water stream on either
    side of the rotor compartment.  It would provide some degree of
    cross-check, especially if calibrated by a pulse from a joule heater in
    the water intake line after the first temperature probe.

This would not work. The water flow is extremely rapid and irregular. Previous
attempts to measure it have interfered with the operation of the machine.
Also, the fan blows over the rotor chamber as well as the radiator, so much of
the heat would be removed before it could be measured.

Along the same lines, Mitchell Jones suggested the device be used in the
Griggs configuration. This would require re-engineering which would take a
great deal work I expect.

The machine is of a reasonable size, so it would not take much effort to put
the entire thing inside a large wooden chamber. You could then run cooling
water into the chamber, through a coiled hose and out the other side, and do
water flow calorimetry. We plan to do something like this as soon as we
confirm large excess heat with the present airflow HVAC methods. Bear in mind,
these standard HVAC procedures have been used extensively worldwide for nearly
a century. There is not the slightest chance the method is somehow faulty, but
there is a distinct possibility that we are doing it wrong. For that matter we
could do water flow calorimetry wrong too! We might as well start off doing it
wrong the easy way.

Rick Monteverde asks:

    Thank you for reporting this apparent huge excess energy experiment.

    But what does it have to do with aliens?

You must be part of the conspiracy asking a question like that. You'll get
nothing out of me!


    Seriously, when will you get something running in Bow again?

Within weeks, if all goes well. That's a big if:

iii   fffff
 I    f
 I    fff
 I    f
iii   f

See?


    And would it be considered, or even practical given the device's
    plumbing considerations, to transport some barrels of water from Georgia

It does not require barrels; gallon jugs will do. The water may indeed have
something to do with it. However, in previous tests we did use water brought
up from Georgia, yet we saw no excess heat. Pope overhauled this unit when he
brought it back to Georgia, so perhaps he repaired the problem. Unfortunately,
he does not know what steps he took that had a beneficial effect. Bear in
mind, there may still be a mistake with these measurements, particularly the
input power. These results motivate us to test again in situ with better
recording instruments.

Scott Little asks:

    Do you happen to know the total quantity of water in the system, Jed?
    That might provide a useful reality check on the 160% excess.

No, sorry, I do not have that information. It is less than a gallon.


    This instrument apparently reads directly in CFM, yet it can only be
    measuring wind speed.  That means it has to be calibrated for a certain
    duct size.

Correct. The duct size is one square foot, as noted. This allows a 1:1
conversion.


    The machine shop environment explains the "200 volts".  It must be the
    nominal 208 volts that you get between any two legs of a 120V-to-neutral
    3-phase supply (i.e. 1.732*120).

Right.


    We are willing to assemble the necessary equipment for the water-flow
    side of it and meet you at Pope's place for your next series of tests.

Well, there's plenty of room at the shop. The place is normally occupied by
several machines, three men, and two dogs. But I expect we will do extensive
testing back in Bow.


Mitchell Swartz writes:

    Also,  what is the nature  and quantity of the stored heat discussed in
    the post?

Note the chronology at the end of the report, and these sentences:

At 1:20 p.m. the fan was turned off and the rotor was turned on. The stopwatch
was reset and started. . . .

The water temperature rose rapidly, reaching 150 degrees Fahrenheit after 14
minutes . . .

At minute 20 the fan was turned on. The water temperature fell rapidly . . .

The machine does not produce excess heat unless it reaches a critical
temperature. Therefore, it is run for a while with the fan turned off,
allowing heat to build up. Note that at minute 31 the water temperature
stopped dropping, and the duct air temperature stabilized.


    How long was the "burst"?

Thirty-one minutes, as noted.


    How does one know that the heat storage was exhausted?

The temperature stabilizes.


    Was a temperature-time profile obtained of the burst?

No, because I was busy trying to measure input power and other parameters. A
profile would require automated data collection.


    Agree with the need for Horace: "calibrat(ion) by a pulse from a joule
    heater in the  water intake line after the first temperature probe."

Are you telling me I should agree, or have you left out the first person
pronoun again? In Bow, we did extensive calibrations with thermal pulses from
a joule heater. We used the same anemometer that I used on Wednesday, along
with other more sophisticated instruments. Input balanced output closely, so
we know the anemometer and other instruments work correctly.

Grammar note: in English, a verb without a pronoun indicates the imperative
mode. Ask any non-native speaker!

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 12:20:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27972;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:18:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:18:35 -0800
Message-ID: <364CAF6E.21DF8AC1 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:15:10 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com> <3.0.5.32.19981113121622.00d11260@spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eWsBe2.0.yq6.RG9Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24507
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> At 11:09 PM 11/12/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> >I don't know, but the guys who run things (W. Heitmann, R. Chiao, etc.)
> >claim that the signal velocity can exceed C, but can't transmit an
> >intelligible signal. They also claim the front velocity never exceeds C.
> >???
> 
>     The real question you have to keep asking is "which c?"   

According to the Heitmann, regular C. (300,000km/sec)

> There is another way to get photons to move
> significantly faster than the speed of light in a normal vacuum which is to
> change the permeability.  This can be done with two closely spaced conducting
> plates.  However, from the point of view of relativity, there are no
> contradictions created--either think of it as changing the shape of space, or
> that the speed of light is different in that region.

Even by increasing the local speed of light, the global speed of light
is the same. Therefore, the relativity experts tell me, going locally
slower than light but globally FTL still produces paradoxes.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 12:57:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13128;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:56:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:56:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113155659.00d2e4d0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:56:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <364CAF6E.21DF8AC1 sunherald.infi.net>
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19981113121622.00d11260 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OrHJH3.0.vC3.lp9Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24508
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:15 PM 11/13/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
 
>According to the Heitmann, regular C. (300,000km/sec)

   (Slightly under that, but who is counting?)

>Even by increasing the local speed of light, the global speed of light
>is the same. Therefore, the relativity experts tell me, going locally
>slower than light but globally FTL still produces paradoxes.
 
    Actually, if the anomalous region is not accelerated, or moving with
respect to another such area there are no paradoxes.  Imagine a pipe that
is one meter long inside and three meters long outside.  No paradoxes.  Now
move two such pipes past each other at high speeds, and paradoxes are
possible.

    Incidently, are you familar with Cherenkov radiation?  Cherenkov
radiation is the light given off when a particle moves faster than light.
Often produced by cosmic rays and in "swimming pool" nuclear reactors.

    In physics classes, I used to feel like I was back in the early
forties.  My father explained how he would listen to "experts" explain why
it was impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound, then go to work on
a project
calculating gunnery tables.  (Yes, this was at the Moore School, and the
project matured into ENIAC.)

    A few years later I was listening to pronouncements about the
involatility of the speed of light--while using Cherenkov radiation to
detect particles.  (Yes, it is possible to generate Cherenkov radiation in
"empty" space, but it is much easier if you fill the space with water.)

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 13:03:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16100;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:02:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:02:23 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b2724c6902a1 [12.72.131.92]>
In-Reply-To: <009c01be0f2a$06a87920$a24accd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:58:13 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Z2282.0.Ux3.Vv9Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24509
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mike -

   >  Rick, you haven't been paying attention to the story
   >  unfolding at Bow and this is a very cheap shot. Water
   >  from Georgia has been shipped to NERL. You haven't
   >  put up the money or effort to check out the KF.

"Cheap shot"? Good grief, where is that coming from? I was just asking a
question. I remembered some stuff about trying different waters on the
machine at Bow, and something about the argon even. But I thought that that
was all done on a different machine: the one they had at Bow. I was talking
about the KF in Georgia. I assumed they might try to bring that one up
there eventually, try different water if it seemed necessary, and hook it
up for water flow. I was just asking about the state of the water issue WRT
this newly running unit. I have to put up money to ask a question here?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 13:09:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21066;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:08:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:08:33 -0800
Message-ID: <019301be0f49$49308b60$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; Kinetic Furnace, Griggs, and Nanoparticles
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:04:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"_xMu01.0.495.G_9Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24510
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

When you add dissociation of water by agitation
with a "metal catalyst" to dissociation of H2 in Pd you conclude that
perhaps putting nanopowders in the water might do some good.

These things are too small to filtered or seen with less that an electron
microscope,but could be in tap water just from natural erosion of rocks and
soil.

Nanopowders Inc.:

www.nanopowders.com has a selection of nanopowders for sale.

Regards,  Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 13:30:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29625;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:28:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:28:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:26:56 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"aS4w11.0.jE7.FIAJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24511
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> ***{I am interested in examining claims that fall outside the bounds of
>> contemporary, politically correct, loot funded, fad "science."
>
>Me too.
>
>> However, I
>> prefer to deal with such claims from a rational perspective, using
>> scientific principles that have stood the test of time, and I prefer to
>> interact with knowledgeable, rational individuals who approach things from
>> a similar perspective.
>
>Me too.
>
>> This is the only list I know of where those
>> conditions, to a significant degree, are satisfied. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>How do YOU fit in?......  I mean, you don't exactly emulate the criteria you
>find so important

***{You certainly do not, unless you consider ad hominem pejoratives about
the mental states of others to be a part of rational discourse. My guess,
however--since you seem bent on a discussion of mental states--is that the
issue of alien visitation is a matter that you  do not want to confront
from *any* perspective, rational or otherwise. The likely reason: fear of
being laughed at by your peers. After all, as "Senior Mechanical Engineer"
at a Motorola shop, you are surrounded by people who obtained advanced
degrees by memorizing "politically correct" horse manure at our wonderful,
loot-funded "educational" institutions, thereby demonstrating that they
placed a higher value on being accepted than upon truth. In such an
"educated" environment, the norm is typically one of mindless conformity of
precisely the sort that you seem to be exhibiting here. --Mitchell
Jones}***

 you have opened the door to ad ho

***{No I haven't. Truth be told, it is you and a couple of others who want
to treat this topic in an unscientific, irrational, and ad hominem manner,
probably due the motivations which I discussed above. My preference is to
discuss the evidence in a logical and scientific manner and see how much
progress can be made. If you would like to contribute to such an exchange,
which is fully as on topic as the discussion of CF, I would be interested
in your ideas about the trajectories that appear on the SOHO time lapse
photos. What, from the perspective of a mechanical engineer, could create
such paths on the field of a time-lapse photo, other than some object
moving about in the field? And since the object is not moving inertially,
does it not follow that it must be moving under its own power? And, if that
is the case, don't you think it is a bit coincidental that other photos
taken by SOHO seem to show the presence of some sort of gigantic
spacecraft? Please explain to us, from your perspective as a working
mechanical engineer, why it is unscientific to discuss this evidence, if
that is what you believe. --Mitchell Jones}***

 , and your ongoing disregard for others who subscribe

***{How funny! Most of the CF enthusiasts who read this list came here to
hide from the ad hominems of conformists on usenet, and now a few of them
want to use the same tactics to close this list to any topic *other* than
CF. And, heaping absurdity upon absurdity, they--or at least you--have the
chutzpa to claim that anyone who chooses to discuss one of those other
perfectly legal topics is exhibiting "disregard for others who subscribe."
Well, I have the same advice for you that I have given to others: get
yourself a good set of e-mail filters, and remove the posts that do not
interest you. If this is not an acceptable solution for you, then it can
only be because your true goal is to censor the e-mail of the others on
this list. After all, that would mean you are not satisfied when your own
e-mail has the characteristics that you prefer. In addition, you want the
e-mail of others to be limited by your criteria. If that is not a desire to
censor others, then I don't know what is. --Mitchell Jones}***

 only
>chases off the very people you wish to associate with. How are you
>accomplishing your goal?


***{The implication of the above is that you are a knowledgeable, rational
individual who approaches things from a scientific perspective. But, in
that case, how do you account for the contents of your present post?
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Just trying to understand.

***{I hope my various annotations, above, have assisted you in this
endeavor. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  "The highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets
>   for it, but what he becomes by it." -John Ruskin


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 13:31:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29673;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:28:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:28:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199811132128.PAA18984 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:26:58 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"yi0UD2.0.kE7.FIAJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24512
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Indeed, the only thing that seems a bit
>> implausible is the fact that, in the "obelisk" photo, none of the shrubbery
>> in the foreground obscures any of the "obelisk"--which, if authentic, is
>> some sort of personal spacecraft analogous to the automobile. Of course,
>> the fact that none of the shrubbery intrudes between the camera and the
>> "obelisk" is not really surprising: it is a photographer's instinct to go
>> for the clear shot.
>
><snip>
>
>This photo is an obvious fake.  Check the light sources.

***{It *could* be a fake, but if so it is not obvious. Without seeing the
object under controlled lighting conditions, there is no way to judge
whether the degree of shadowing of the lower portion of the object is
appropriate, and with the lower foreground of the photo obscured by
shrubbery, the shadow which it would have cast on the vegetation beneath it
would not be  visible. I do find the geometric regularity of the shape of
the object to be a bit surprising, but such misgivings are rather
subjective: I wouldn't have predicted the grotesque fins that appeared on
the '57 Cadillac, either, but they were there. The point: it is not obvious
to me what motivates the designers of vehicles manufactured on Earth, so
how can it be "obvious" what will motivate the designers of vehicles
manufactured on other worlds? Can you, for example, tell me what the
Cadillac is going to look like in the year 2000? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Mitch, I suggest you join the Ufo Updates listserver.  Those people will
>appreciate your postings more.  Send a subscription request to
>updates globalserve.net

***{Your suggestion is duly noted and has been filed in the appropriate
receptacle. In a similar helpful spirit I suggest that if you are not
interested in this topic you should either skip over these posts or filter
them out. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Terry
>
>--
>Copyright of my DNA is retained and may not be replicated in whole or in part
>without expressed written permission.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:32:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15130;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:30:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:30:39 -0800
Message-ID: <364CCE5E.C1DA7B0 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:27:10 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
	 <3.0.5.32.19981113121622.00d11260 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.5.32.19981113155659.00d2e4d0@spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SSUmh.0.Hi3.ECBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24513
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>     Incidently, are you familar with Cherenkov radiation?

Yes.

>     A few years later I was listening to pronouncements about the
> involatility of the speed of light--while using Cherenkov radiation to
> detect particles.  (Yes, it is possible to generate Cherenkov radiation in
> "empty" space, but it is much easier if you fill the space with water.)

In empty space!? As in AIRLESS? As in VACUUM??? How? This implies that a
real, charged object is travelling faster than c.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:36:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19196;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:28:57 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811131731_MC2-6026-7DF4 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"LrvF41.0.nh4.OGBJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24514
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Rick Monteverde writes:

     "Cheap shot"? Good grief, where is that coming from?

Nowhere. You caught Mike in a bad mood.


     But I thought that that was all done on a different machine: the one
     they had at Bow.

All three existing machines have been to Bow and none worked.


     I was just asking about the state of the water issue WRT this newly
     running unit. I have to put up money to ask a question here?

Yes! At last someone (Bill Beaty) has found a way to make a buck on Internet.
Not only do you have to pay to ask, you have to pay other people to shut up
about invisible martians in Arizona! There's no free lunch, OK? Stop
bellyaching.

- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:35:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16872;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:33:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:33:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199811132231.RAA09003 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:32:32 -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: <"SkulG2.0.Y74.7FBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24515
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott Little wrote:
 
> Right. If Ed's measurements support Jed's, I think the most prudent next
> step is to verify the air-flow calorimetry with water-flow calorimetry on
> the original experiment.  If the insertion of temp probes and a flowmeter
> into Pope's water circuit kills the effect, that knowledge alone would be
> worth the trouble.
 
We certainly concur, but believe that any perturbance of water flow should
be kept to a minimum.  Removing the radiator from the unit and placing in a
well insulated water bath with circulation would be a much better means of
determining heat loss from the radiator.  The water in and out of the water
bath would be forced with a peristaltic pump and flow would be steady
enough to verify with two methods.  Trying to get flow rates from the
output of the rotor chamber is not a good choice.  The aeration of the
water, even at the output of the radiator is unlikely to be consistent or
easily knowable and the system is pressurized, so the imperfect art of flow
metering is burdened by nonlinearity.

This water bath method would not include the heat losses from the rotor
motor. By ignoring those losses and still finding substantial overunity
COP, this would be a slam dunk with a simple heat measurement method, would
you not agree?

We are considering the insertion of a torque gauge between the rotor and
motor, but this would change the mechanical characteristics.  If we try it
and it still works, this would be the best method of determining COP of the
rotor assembly alone, without swamping it with motor noise.

The idea at this stage is to be as simple as possible and establish a
compelling COP signal.  Once we have established existence, we will be
concerned about quantifying parameter effects.  How much of this takes
place in Cumming or in Bow has not been planned.

We will keep you appraised.

Ed Wall 
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:40:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19546;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:39:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:39:26 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <364CB515.BD2A8572 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:39:17 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net>
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 OAA19516
Resent-Message-ID: <"gYPB23.0.Kn4.UKBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24516
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{You certainly do not, unless you consider ad hominem pejoratives about
> the mental states of others to be a part of rational discourse. My guess,
> however--since you seem bent on a discussion of mental states--is that the
> issue of alien visitation is a matter that you  do not want to confront
> from *any* perspective, rational or otherwise. The likely reason: fear of
> being laughed at by your peers. After all, as "Senior Mechanical Engineer"
> at a Motorola shop, you are surrounded by people who obtained advanced
> degrees by memorizing "politically correct" horse manure at our wonderful,
> loot-funded "educational" institutions, thereby demonstrating that they
> placed a higher value on being accepted than upon truth. In such an
> "educated" environment, the norm is typically one of mindless conformity of
> precisely the sort that you seem to be exhibiting here. --Mitchell
> Jones}***

LOL.  Nice rant, too bad you obviously know nothing of me.  Lots of smoke, but
where is the fire?  If you spent more time READING posts instead of TYPING
replies you would know how silly your attempted slander and dismissal is... 
seems to be typical behavior for you.

> ***{The implication of the above is that you are a knowledgeable, rational
> individual who approaches things from a scientific perspective. But, in
> that case, how do you account for the contents of your present post?
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Easy, but I doubt I will ever get through.  You seem to be too busy getting off
on being "persecuted" to discuss anything rationally and without having to
resort to insults. 

> > Just trying to understand.
>
> ***{I hope my various annotations, above, have assisted you in this
> endeavor. --Mitchell Jones}***

Yep, your GQ is too high for me and it is painfully obvious I'm wasting
everyone's time.  Nice chatting with you.  Good luck and best wishes with your
endeavors.  Respond if you like (as if Pavlov's dog had a choice....), but don't
hold your breath for a response.  I wont be reading your stuff anymore.

...delete
   ....delete
       ....delete

My apologies to the group for even trying.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:41:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20419;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:40:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:40:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199811132238.RAA10106 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:42:29 -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: <"lZkoR3.0.z-4.XLBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24517
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

No offense taken.  I was a bit surprised that only one person from Vortex
was interested in receiving the graphical data on my KF testing to date
when I posted that message a few days ago.

Ed Wall
NERL

> I have to put up money to ask a question here?

Personal checks are accepted, payable to Cold Fusion Technology <G>.

> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:47:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23788;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:46:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:46:17 -0800
Message-ID: <364CB63B.58F9A2E9 bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:44:11 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Organization: Chaotic
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
References: <199811132128.PAA18984 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4aFnm2.0.Yp5.uQBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24518
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{It *could* be a fake, but if so it is not obvious.

<snip>

>
>
> >
> >Mitch, I suggest you join the Ufo Updates listserver.  Those people will
> >appreciate your postings more.  Send a subscription request to
> >updates globalserve.net
>
> ***{Your suggestion is duly noted and has been filed in the appropriate
> receptacle. In a similar helpful spirit I suggest that if you are not
> interested in this topic you should either skip over these posts or filter
> them out. --Mitchell Jones}***

Mitch,

Hey, I'm on your side!  Ask Fred Sparber or Rick Monteverde.  They know what a
flake I am. <g>  I used to run the MUFON section on CompuServe and Fred and Rick
often visited to make fun of all the flakes. <bg>

This was not intended as an attack.  I guess you've been attacked so much, you
grow to expect it.  But, I was sincere.  The UpDates listserver is the best UFO
list on the net.  If you join, you will enjoy conversations with some of the most
prominent Ufologists in the world: Stan Friedman, Jerome Clark, Phil Mantle, to
name a very few.  The list is moderated and the discussions are often as
scientific as Vortex.  If you were a member of the list, you would already know
that the Reed photo has been analyzed by some of the best photo experts around.
We even enjoy the comments of Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine.  If you
would like to see an example of the list discussions, you can read the daily
archives at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/

Most of these people on Vortex aren't interested in the things you post.  I assure
you, the folks on UpDates will welcome your discussions and enjoy bantering the
issues.  Let's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and leave these guys to find
the AG propulsion system and energy source for our interstellar vehicles.

Terry


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:47:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24196;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:46:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:46:43 -0800
Message-ID: <01b401be0f56$ff1dcde0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Catalytic Water-Splitting Experiment
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:43:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"vW0lb2.0.-v5.IRBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24519
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The early experiments with Heat Pipes surprised
many when high-purity water in Aluminum heat pipes reacted with the Aluminum
and liberated
H2 causing a gas pocket on one end at quite low temperatures.

>From a chemical reaction standpoint the water keeps reacting with the
Aluminum,forming
Al(OH)3 + 1.5 H2.

However, the "compressing" of non-condensable gases at one end of a simple
operating heat-pipe by the condensable vapors,allows a very sensitive means
for detection and analysis of the gases, combustible or not.

A heat pipe made from quartz, stainless, copper,or brass, can be filled with
a small quantity of water and whatever "catalyst" one chooses and heated at
the evaporator end.

With a heat sink around the upper(condensing) section (even a wet rag or a
blower) and a needle bleed valve the non-condensable gases can be bled into
a pan of water containing some detergent and the combustible gas bubbles can
be lit with a match, or other more sophisticated schemes can be used for
quantification/analysis.

This worked very well for reacting biomass with
water, up to supercritical water temperatures/pressures and made for easy
separation of the non-condensable from the steam, without any loss of steam
or other condensable vapors.

Regards,  Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 14:55:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28088;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:52:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:52:19 -0800
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: <364CB818.67812D97 css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:52:08 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
References: <199811132238.RAA10106 mercury.mv.net>
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 OAA28029
Resent-Message-ID: <"XnYeO1.0.os6.ZWBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24520
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> No offense taken.  I was a bit surprised that only one person from Vortex
> was interested in receiving the graphical data on my KF testing to date
> when I posted that message a few days ago.

Data?  Why would you want to go and confuse a perfectly good thread with facts? 
ha ha ha

Not uninterested, just buried!




-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 15:12:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02442;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:11:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:11:44 -0800
Message-ID: <005601be0f5a$f0ba7f60$a31a010a ar91037.argis.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:11:19 -0600
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 PAA02323
Resent-Message-ID: <"nGYlY1.0.nb.koBJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24521
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Most of these people on Vortex aren't interested in the things you post.  I assure
>you, the folks on UpDates will welcome your discussions and enjoy bantering the
>issues.  Let's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and leave these guys to find
>the AG propulsion system and energy source for our interstellar vehicles.
>
>Terry


My 2 cents:

I've been subscribing to this list since Oct, 1995, and, though I can't remember the legitimate topics this list is supposed to cater to, I do know that the ONLY topic discussed seriously on this last, for the past 3 years, has been New Energy. There have

 been other topics discussed in brief, from time to time, but those topics were 'tolerated' rather than taken seriously. There haven't been any other topics considered ON-TOPIC here during these past 3 years. So it seems to me that any other topic WILL ch

ange the CHARACTER of this list. This distresses me to some degree because I don't want to see any others leave because the LIST has changed.

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 15:16:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21671;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113171132.00763a00 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:11:32 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: New list, without Alien Photos
In-Reply-To: <364CB515.BD2A8572 css.mot.com>
References: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XVran3.0.TI5.OsBJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24522
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 16:39 11/13/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>
>...delete
>   ....delete
>       ....delete
>
>My apologies to the group for even trying.

My condolences, John.  Good try.

Since the vocal majority seems to like the new Vortex-L, I would like to
form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
at a time with NO messages being posted to it.  

I don't like the idea of full moderation but I do think abusers should be
excommunicated after a couple of warnings.

When such a list is in place, I will unsubscribe from Vortex-L.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 15:56:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA23483;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:54:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:54:42 -0800
Message-ID: <020701be0f60$7ea3e5a0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:51:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"kzkQR1.0.rk5.1RCJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24523
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:13 PM
Subject: New list, without Alien Photos

Scott wrote:


>At 16:39 11/13/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>>
>>...delete
>>   ....delete
>>       ....delete
>>
>>My apologies to the group for even trying.
>
>My condolences, John.  Good try.
>
>Since the vocal majority seems to like the new Vortex-L,
I don't think it's a vocal majority, Scott.

The diversity of agenda's (interests)in moderation that this list has had,
with polite
discussion when there is disagreement gives it a uniqueness not easily
replaced.

Other list providers have the impunitive discretion of "excommunicating"
nuisances, why not Vortex-L?

I make what I consider generous remuneration for the use of this list and I
think We have the Right to Exclude those who think this is an
anything-goes newsgroup or chat-room.

> I would like to
>form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
>exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
>off-topic messages every day .  Considering the frequency of experiment
>reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
>at a time with NO messages being posted to it.

I'll buy that.
>
>I don't like the idea of full moderation but I do think abusers should be
>excommunicated after a couple of warnings.
>
>When such a list is in place, I will unsubscribe from Vortex-L.

That would be a loss to the "Silent Majority" that monitor this list (I know
they're I frequently get private e-mail from them)will probably quit the
list too.

Best Regards,   Fred Sparber
>
>Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
>Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
>512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 16:05:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27844;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:03:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:03:44 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:03:06 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
In-reply-to: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199811140003.RAA22070 smtp2.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: <"7QgNn2.0.wo6.VZCJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24524
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:26 PM 11/13/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>After all, as "Senior Mechanical Engineer"
>at a Motorola shop, you are surrounded by people who obtained advanced
>degrees by memorizing "politically correct" horse manure at our wonderful,
>loot-funded "educational" institutions, thereby demonstrating that they
>placed a higher value on being accepted than upon truth. In such an
>"educated" environment, the norm is typically one of mindless conformity of
>precisely the sort that you seem to be exhibiting here. --Mitchell

Mitch, I have just read the last of your offensive pseudo-intellectual
anti-establishment paranoid libertarian delusional verbose disgusting
off-topic bullshit I am ever going to read.

There, I feel better now. Go ahead and flame away; the last word is yours.
I won't see it.

--Lynn



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 16:18:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00641;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:16:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:16:40 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113191741.00d2f320 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:17:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
In-Reply-To: <364CCE5E.C1DA7B0 sunherald.infi.net>
References: <364BBD5C.6431 ca-ois.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19981113121622.00d11260 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.5.32.19981113155659.00d2e4d0 spectre.mitre.org>
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 QAA00620
Resent-Message-ID: <"k_hEX2.0.w9.elCJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24525
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:27 PM 11/13/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>In empty space!? As in AIRLESS? As in VACUUM??? How? This implies that a
>real, charged object is travelling faster than c.

    That is what I meant by asking "which c."  C without a subscript
usually refers to the local speed of light, while, excuse me for not having
the
right font, c0 = sqrt(mu0*epsilon0) by definition, where c0 is the speed of
light in the vacuum, mu0 is the permeability of the vacuum and epsilon0 is
the permitivity of the vacuum. Epsilon0 is 8.854 187 817 � 10^-12 F m^-1
and mu0 is 12.566 370 614 � 10^-7 N A^-2.

    Okay, all nice and tidy and in SI units completely defined.  Or is it?
In point of fact mu0 and epsilon0 are defined in terms of flat space with
no nearby matter.  Mu and epsilon, and for that matter c, are not very
constant, which is why the lenses in your camera work.  But that is not
"empty" space you say.  Right, but do the photons go through the atoms, or
through the space in between?  It turns out not to matter, what you are
doing is using matter to "engineer" the vacuum, and that engineering the
vacuum can be done just as well with the fields--gravitational, electric,
magnetic, etc.--even without the matter.

     None of this is very useful for spaceships, but it is necessary when
trying to understand high speed circuitry.  However, the easist example
comes from internal reflection.  (Internal reflection is what happens in
the prisms in your binoculars for example, or if you look into a water
glass from the side and see a reflection at the surface.)  Internal
reflection is not internal.  What happens is that the quartz prism or
whatever changes the speed of light in its vicinity.  This transition is
not abrupt, but occurs over a short (nanometers for light) distance.  If a
photon passes through this region perpendicularly, it gets out, but at an
angle, the two sides of the photon are in areas where the speed of light is
different.  Since both sides move at the speed of light, the photon curves
around and re-enters the prism.  So if you change the properties of space
outside the prism, the light can get out.

    All very fine you say, but all you are doing there is decreasing the
speed of light.  Well it turns out that between two closely spaced
conducting surfaces the speed of light is increased.  Guess what happens
all the time in integrated circuts and PC boards....  (In fact it is much
worse than that makes it sound.  The speed of light in the conductor where
you want the signal is less than c0, so you are all the time fighting the
problem that the crosstalk arrives before the signal.  One part of the
solution is to use a non-conductive 
insulator between layers--and on top--and to choose the properties of the
insulator so it has a slower c, and the internal reflection mentioned above
helps reduce cross-talk. 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 16:34:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07303;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:31:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:31:36 -0800
From: DColling vines.gems.gov.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: re: New list, without Alien Photos
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <vines.wvi8+bwAHqA corundum.bcsc.gov.bc.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Resent-Message-ID: <"pKQDR.0.1o1.ezCJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24526
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Me too. Ah, shucks - me three.
---------- Original Text ----------

From: Scott Little <little eden.com>, on 11/13/98 7:15 AM:

At 16:39 11/13/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>
>...delete
>   ....delete
>       ....delete
>
>My apologies to the group for even trying.

My condolences, John.  Good try.

Since the vocal majority seems to like the new Vortex-L, I would like to
form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
at a time with NO messages being posted to it.  

I don't like the idea of full moderation but I do think abusers should be
excommunicated after a couple of warnings.

When such a list is in place, I will unsubscribe from Vortex-L.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 17:24:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27527;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:18:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:18:25 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:18:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199811140118.RAA17339 Au.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kp-Fc.0.1k6.XfDJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24527
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I have written several times about the aether flow out of the sun, and about
how it is modulated due to mass to space conversions in the core, aka mass
to energy fusion reactions.  The modulation occurs over the solar cycle that
is well known to be 11 years, but less well known to really be a 22 year
cycle if you include magnetic field reversals.

See http://www.agu.org/GRL/articles/98GL50414/node7.html#f2

In figure 3, you can see the solar wind velocity profile is modulated on the
solar cycle, and it takes 22 years to get back to the original orientation.
I have been looking for this "Rosetta Stone" piece of information for a
couple of years now, and just found it.  This allows me to distinguish
between the faster and slower aether flows heading out of the sun, and in so
doing, it allows me now to tell you which way the aether is flowing in
regions of "North", or "South" "magnetic field polarity".

In the paper, they tell us that the solar wind during the 1976 minima, had
the low speed wind shifted northward from the solar equatorial plane of
rotation (upward on figure 3, ie, the blue patch at the 1976 solar minimum
activity period).

Aether is flowing out of the entire sun, all the time.  But the flow rate
modulates with the solar cycle.  And further, this modulation goes up and
down in the northern and southern hemispheres in opposition, leading to the
net flow out of the sun being essentailly steady state.  This is a bi-modal
flow process which is a common, fundamental oscillatory pattern for spheres.
This results from the positive feedback from periodic fluidization of the
entire volume of the sun.  

while the flow is always outward, the velocity is maximum in one hemisphere
and minimum in the other hemisphere during solar minimum as you can see from
the solar wind velocity profile.  Remember, the solar wind is being
accelerated away from the sun because the aether flow is accelerating away
from the sun.

To understand this, imagine three drivers on a freeway in three adjacent
lanes.  The driver in the middle lane travels at 60 MPH all the time.  The
drivers in the adjacent lanes alternate from driving at 70 and 50 (left /
right) to 50 and 70 (left and right).  This way, all three drivers meet at
the center at the mid time of each cycle change in velocity.  The driver on
the left begins by moving out ahead, and the driver to the right falls
behind.  Then, after they switch velocities, the driver on the right is now
gaining, and the one on the left is falling behind.  

That is the oscillation of aether heading out of the sun.  It is always
heading outward, but the velocity for the faster wind switches from north to
south on each solar cycle.  And the maximum difference in velocities occurs
at solar minima.  

Fluidization leads to pock marks in the medium being fluidized during
periods of rapid **change** in flow velocity.  Thus, the maximum activity on
the surface of the sun occurs mid way between the maximum velocity
assymetry, during the period of maximum rate of change of velocity in each
hemisphere.  

In the hemisphere of decending velocity (ie, going from red to blue), the
surface activity is occuring due to settling of the matter of the sun.  Take
a bag of flour and drop it on the counter and watch the a small amount of
the flour shoot upward due to the air squeezed out of the majority of the
bulk due to the settling of the bulk of the flour.  That bursting out is
what causes sun spots.

Next, if you could blow air up through the flour from beneath, then you
could learn what happens during an increase in fluidization.  The same pock
marks will appear, and again, those are sun spots.  

There should be a small qualitative difference between the nature of the sun
spots in the north and south hemispheres, and that difference should change
each solar cycle.  But I cannot say exactly what it will be.  I already know
about the change between polarity of preceeding and following spots, so that
isn't fair to "predict".  But there should be a difference in when a bounce
is observed as the fluidization bottoms out (settling) or peaks out (emission).

This information is pertinent because it is known that volcanoes and some
earthquake faults tend to repeat with a 22 year pattern, and with the 11
year pattern.  This data goes back for hundreds of thousands of years in ice
core samples.  The solar cycle is found throughout the history of the cores
to follow the 11 year pattern, and this also shows a variation in the amount
of dust in the snow that made the deposits.  That dust variation, at least
in part, came from volcanism.  

The solar activity increase and decrease tends to amplify or reduce the
intensity of gravitational vibration energy the earth experiences.  Aether
emission, reduces the solar gravitational potential.  The amplitude of the
aether component of the solar gravitational field I think is 0.5 solar
masses worth.  By this I mean that I think the sun has 1.5 "solar masses"
worth of matter where "solar mass" is a defined number of kilograms based on
our present theory which does not account for the aether outward thrust
component of gravitation.

But the modulation in amplitude is only a tiny fraction of that 0.5
component.  Thus, it is small, and it is variable.  

The variation in north south emission of aether over time, leads to a
perturbation being imposed on any planets with orbital periods matching the
solar variations.  The variations that can be imposed are increasing
inclination, increasing ellipticity (ie like Mercury), precession of orbital
eccentricity, etc.

Later, Ross Tessien


  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 17:28:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01894;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b2727d24ccc2 [208.228.222.171]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:25:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos
Resent-Message-ID: <"cId9Q.0.UT.2oDJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24528
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 5:11 PM 11/13/98, Scott Little wrote:
>At 16:39 11/13/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>>
>>...delete
>>   ....delete
>>       ....delete
>>
>>My apologies to the group for even trying.
>
>My condolences, John.  Good try.
>
>Since the vocal majority seems to like the new Vortex-L,


What about the *actual* majority?

I agree with Craig Haynie that the fundamental nature of the list is
changing lately.  The list in years past was operating in part by
uncodified principles.  If enough people complained about a topic it died
or went elsewhere.  That does not seem to be happening now.  The present
charter and rules unfortunately allow scientific discussion of most any
topic.

BTW, the freenrg list, last time I was there many months ago, was supposed
to be dedicated to the discussion of experimental results only.  It seemed
to lack the more serious and professional nature of vortex, though, and had
even more daily posts to wade through.  Codifying the character of the old
vortex, or improving on it, is possibly a significant group exercise that
is overdue.


>I would like to
>form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
>exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
>off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
>reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
>at a time with NO messages being posted to it.


I have to wonder if this lack of experimental results posting is due in
part to more people getting serious positive or preliminarily positive
results, which tends to make for closed lips.  Just wishful thinking I
suppose.  I feel sure that's that's not why we lost Britz, Sevoir, or
Merryman though.


>
>I don't like the idea of full moderation but I do think abusers should be
>excommunicated after a couple of warnings.


A good idea.  A limit of a couple warnings a month would be a very tolerant
and reasonable approach also.


>
>When such a list is in place, I will unsubscribe from Vortex-L.

There already is an unconstrained list, vortex-b.  Why not make vortex-l a
list for serious discussion of new energy experimental results or proposed
experiments, and brief news of related scientific developments, which is
more in keeping with its past character?   I do also agree it would be nice
to have a list like you suggest though, strictly limited in scope, because
I have been forced to leave vortex on occasion due to personal time
constraints.  If there were a list like you suggest, if I understand your
concept correctly, I suspect some of the members who have left vortex might
subscribe, as there would be a low posting volume and the posting content
would be of more interest to a professional.  The problem is finding a set
of rules that also keeps the discsussion on topic, scientific, serious,
cooperative, and free from personal attack.  Another consideration is that
vortex-l already has archiving, and some of us have already donated money
to sustain vortex-l.

It is mostly up to Bill Beaty at this point though, unless a new list is
organized and funded by one or more groups of us.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 17:39:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03005;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:37:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:37:56 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b2728fa926e2 [208.228.222.171]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:44:26 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"n5JGX3.0.sk.qxDJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24529
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If the critical parameter relates to the water it may be a particulate or
colloid that settled out of the water between GA and NH.  If memory serves
me, Georgia clay containes a high concentration of rare earths, some from
the big meteor hit in the gulf of Mexico.  Might bring back some soil to
contaminate the water in a test or so?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 17:43:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03844;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:40:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:40:29 -0800
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: <364CDF8A.723A2F3D css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:40:26 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
References: <199811140118.RAA17339 Au.oro.net>
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 RAA03822
Resent-Message-ID: <"sc23P2.0.-x.C-DJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24530
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> I have been looking for this "Rosetta Stone" piece of information for a
> couple of years now, and just found it.  

This IS pretty significant to your theory.  Congratulations and thanks for
sharing!

BTW, where are we in the current cycle?


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 18:12:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13682;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:11:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:11:16 -0800
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: <364CE6BE.54ACAA6F css.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:11:10 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos
References: <v01530502b2727d24ccc2 [208.228.222.171]>
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 SAA13650
Resent-Message-ID: <"EGAmW1.0.cL3.2REJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24531
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> I suspect some of the members who have left vortex might
> subscribe, as there would be a low posting volume and the posting content
> would be of more interest to a professional.  The problem is finding a set
> of rules that also keeps the discsussion on topic, scientific, serious,
> cooperative, and free from personal attack.  Another consideration is that
> vortex-l already has archiving, and some of us have already donated money
> to sustain vortex-l.

Here is a possible suggestion: annually paid subscriptions to post messages. 
Receiving messages and reading the archive could still be kept free.  As someone
who already helps financially support the list, I wouldn't have a problem with
such an arrangement.  I doubt most professionals and serious researchers would
object either.  The subscription obligation would effectively deter most of the
non-serious from even bother signing up to post.

The server already checks email addresses against a master subscriber list
before accepting messages, so implementation would just be a twist on the
existing setup.  Administering the list might be time consuming, but I could
help arrange clerical help for a small percentage.  Bill wouldn't have to do
anything extra.  8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 18:26:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17646;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:25:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:25:45 -0800
Message-ID: <024501be0f75$995aaf40$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:21:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2q35p.0.aJ4.eeEJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24532
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test

Horace wrote:
>

>If the critical parameter relates to the water it may be a particulate or
>colloid that settled out of the water between GA and NH.  If memory serves
>me, Georgia clay contains a high concentration of rare earths, some from
>the big meteor hit in the gulf of Mexico.  Might bring back some soil to
>contaminate the water in a test or so?

Good thought, Horace. It is rather surprising
what a good ash analysis of biomass from different regions shows. The uptake
of metals by plants is used by mining companies in prospecting. According to
a mining engineer acquaintance,analysis of a few pine needles or leaves has
led to some profitable heap-leach
mining operations.

BTW. Silver is concentrated in feedlot manure ash to the point where it is
almost worth "mining" by burning the manure and concentrating the ash.  :-)

Might not need the Iridium or rare-earths from the meteor that wiped out the
dinosaurs, other
metal or MOx nanoparticle-colloids in the water might be doing something
interesting.

Regards,   Frederick


>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 18:32:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20134;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:31:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:31:54 -0800
Message-ID: <024a01be0f76$75ad45c0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:28:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"7h-2o2.0.Ww4.QkEJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24533
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos

Sounds good to me John. I' ve got work off that $795.00 McGraw-Hill
Encyclopedia
of Science and Technolgy CD ROM. But not in a flakey newsgroup.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

John Steck wrote:


>Horace Heffner wrote:
>> I suspect some of the members who have left vortex might
>> subscribe, as there would be a low posting volume and the posting content
>> would be of more interest to a professional.  The problem is finding a
set
>> of rules that also keeps the discsussion on topic, scientific, serious,
>> cooperative, and free from personal attack.  Another consideration is
that
>> vortex-l already has archiving, and some of us have already donated money
>> to sustain vortex-l.
>
>Here is a possible suggestion: annually paid subscriptions to post
messages.
>Receiving messages and reading the archive could still be kept free.  As
someone
>who already helps financially support the list, I wouldn't have a problem
with
>such an arrangement.  I doubt most professionals and serious researchers
would
>object either.  The subscription obligation would effectively deter most of
the
>non-serious from even bother signing up to post.
>
>The server already checks email addresses against a master subscriber list
>before accepting messages, so implementation would just be a twist on the
>existing setup.  Administering the list might be time consuming, but I
could
>help arrange clerical help for a small percentage.  Bill wouldn't have to
do
>anything extra.  8^)
>
>
>--
>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
>    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith
>    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of
>    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied.
>    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 18:43:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24715;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:41:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:41:28 -0800
Message-ID: <364D0929.51212EAC sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:38:01 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: New lists
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VW12G.0.126.OtEJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24534
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

All:

I must agree about certain lists being only for certain things... We
need a dedicated list for a certain range of subjects. Since I've been
told that discussing FTL experiment results is on-topic here, I
continued. However, it is my feeling that I may be swamping the list
with only FTL related material. SInce this is a cold fusion/new energy
discussion group, I decided it would be best if I started my own
discussion group dedicated to FTL-related research. (see:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8709/
If you're interested, take a look. 

Also: If anyone needs parts for experiments, check out this website:
http://home.earthlink.net/~teddp
He sells good stuff at good prices. I hope this falls within the
category of "on-topic advertising", and not considered spam :-)

Best regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister

BTW: Fred, anything new with those microwave experiments?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 19:04:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA31305;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:03:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:03:10 -0800
Message-ID: <027501be0f7a$d2603620$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: New lists
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:59:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"3ulEl.0.3f7.kBFJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24535
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle R. Mcallister <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 7:42 PM
Subject: New lists

Looks good, Kyle. Got your address bookmarked, I'll be in touch regarding
some Superluminal thoughts.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

Kyle wrote:


>All:
>
>I must agree about certain lists being only for certain things... We
>need a dedicated list for a certain range of subjects. Since I've been
>told that discussing FTL experiment results is on-topic here, I
>continued. However, it is my feeling that I may be swamping the list
>with only FTL related material. SInce this is a cold fusion/new energy
>discussion group, I decided it would be best if I started my own
>discussion group dedicated to FTL-related research. (see:
>http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8709/
>If you're interested, take a look.
>
>Also: If anyone needs parts for experiments, check out this website:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~teddp
>He sells good stuff at good prices. I hope this falls within the
>category of "on-topic advertising", and not considered spam :-)
>
>Best regards,
>Kyle R. Mcallister
>
>BTW: Fred, anything new with those microwave experiments?
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 19:08:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA01597;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:06:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:06:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199811140306.OAA13914 tig.com.au>
From: "NeXuS" <nexus tig.com.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:02:08 +1100
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: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"848Hz3.0.lO.xEFJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24536
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

just wondering isnt the formula c0=1/sqrt(epsilon0*mu0)

----------
> From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:17 AM
> 
> At 04:27 PM 11/13/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> >In empty space!? As in AIRLESS? As in VACUUM??? How? This implies that a
> >real, charged object is travelling faster than c.
> 
>     That is what I meant by asking "which c."  C without a subscript
> usually refers to the local speed of light, while, excuse me for not
having
> the
> right font, c0 = sqrt(mu0*epsilon0) by definition, where c0 is the speed
of
> light in the vacuum, mu0 is the permeability of the vacuum and epsilon0
is
> the permitivity of the vacuum. Epsilon0 is 8.854 187 817 � 10^-12 F m^-1
> and mu0 is 12.566 370 614 � 10^-7 N A^-2.
> 
>     
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 19:15:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05473;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:12:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:12:53 -0800
Message-ID: <364D1085.22B31364 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:09:25 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New lists
References: <027501be0f7a$d2603620$9cb4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"svDBt2.0.RL1.rKFJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24537
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:

> Looks good, Kyle. Got your address bookmarked, I'll be in touch regarding
> some Superluminal thoughts.  :-)

Glad you like it. Not much there yet, but I will have more up soon.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 19:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07335;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:14:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:14:48 -0800
Message-ID: <364D10F9.68B46D4F sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:11:21 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
References: <199811140306.OAA13914 tig.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_0UQp.0.So1.eMFJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24538
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

NeXuS wrote:
> 
> just wondering isnt the formula c0=1/sqrt(epsilon0*mu0)

Yes. Decreasing the epsilon0 or mu0 of the vacuum leads to an increase
in the local c.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 20:18:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA22676;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:17:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:17:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113231837.0302f740 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:18:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Superluminal signalling
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <199811140306.OAA13914 tig.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"EhAqj1.0.EY5.WHGJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24539
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:02 PM 11/14/98 +1100, NeXuS wrote:
>just wondering isnt the formula c0=1/sqrt(epsilon0*mu0)
 
   Oops, you are correct.  That's what I get for trying to write a formula in
a readable format without radicals, subscripts, and and a Greek font. ;-)

   It is easier to remember the equation as: epsilon times mu times c
squared equals one (emc squared equals one), but I thought that would
confuse people so I turned it around--then left out the 1/.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 20:20:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA23134;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:18:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:18:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199811140417.WAA25295 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:16:44 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Censorious, Divisive, Ad Hominem, Off-topic Posts
Resent-Message-ID: <"hNBQy2.0.Ef5.SIGJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24540
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This group of late has been receiving divisive and off-topic posts from a
small group of would-be censors. The proof that censorship is their intent
is straightforward: shareware and freeware programs are available which
permit anyone to set e-mail filters to screen out undesired topics and
individuals. With less effort than they expend on many of their posts,
these individuals could sanitize their e-mail down to the precise range of
material that they prefer. However, that is not enough to satisfy them.
They are disturbed because the "character of the list" is not to their
liking--which means: they are disturbed by the fact that, even if they set
up e-mail filters, other members of the list will be receiving material of
which they do not approve. As such, they are representative of the same
authoritarian blight which has settled down on this nation, and which is
destroying it, and those of you who do not approve of what they are doing,
yet remain silent, are essentially consenting to the loss of your rights.
Life is a series of choices, and sometimes you have to choose between
standing on your feet or dropping to your knees.

--Mitchell Jones


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 21:01:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA04117;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:59:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:59:21 -0800
Message-ID: <02a001be0f8b$0e4ab380$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:55:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"UOejF.0.F01.fuGJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24541
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's a close one for agitated water "Dissociation", Horace.

Fe + H2O + E <---> FeO + H2

0.0 - 57 + E <---> - 59

           E ~= -2 kcal/mole

With H2S, FeOx, and FeS etc., dissolved in water,and pH or pD dependent on
CO2, NH3 and NOx content in the water with natural FeOx
nanoparticles-colloids eroded from rocks or the soil, who knows?

A rainy night in Georgia?  :-)

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 21:52:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17422;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:51:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:51:15 -0800
Message-ID: <19981114055333.19162.rocketmail send102.yahoomail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:53:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New list, without Alien Photos
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"8heE6.0.4G4.IfHJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24542
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I would prefer such a list, too. Count me in.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 21:54:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA18557;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:53:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:53:13 -0800
Message-ID: <364D1BD0.4540 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:57:37 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, kfbrown@worldnet.att.net, robert@skylink.net,
        herman gravity.org, epstein@mit.edu, sds@mtl.mit.edu
Subject: Murray: IBM Zurich: molecular rotor , ideas and questions  7.24.98  11.13.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7574520E12FD"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8AWcG1.0.rX4.8hHJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24543
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.

--------------7574520E12FD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nov. 13, 1998  Hello all, The main report in in Science, July 24,
1998.   New Scientist magazine reported this molecular rotor spun at 2.5
million rps, revolutions per second.  I wonder how much kinetic energy
per gram is stored in this 1.5 nm wide wheel, and what the peripheral
velocity is.  Are measurable gravitational frame dragging effects
occuring?  What is the centrifugal acceleration?  How much is the
molecule, its atoms, and its nuclei distorted?  If the molecule could be
symmetrically charged, what magnetic field would be generated, and could
microwave radiation be used to pump up the spin?  Would the magnetic
field strengthen or weaken the wheel?  What is the maximum spin possible
with a molecular carbon nanotube rotor, or diamond rotor?  I suppose
molecular rotors can be designed to act as turbines for EM radiation,
electron, atomic, and molecular beams.  Could it store solar energy?  If
the molecule is perfectly symmetric, then how is spin defined-- does it
become some type of coherent quantum system?  Are such rotors used in
biological systems?

Rich Murray  Room For All
1943 Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

--------------7574520E12FD
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from rmforall.earthlink.net (1Cust30.tnt5.dfw5.da.uu.net [153.37.249.30])
	by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA14544;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <364C8ADF.7E8C earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:39:12 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: IBM Zurich: molecular rotor  7.24.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------117A748B273A"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------117A748B273A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/

--------------117A748B273A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Base: "http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/"

<BASE HREF="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/News/Wheel/">

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
   <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
   <META NAME="Author" CONTENT="webmaster zurich.ibm.com">
   <META NAME="Classification" CONTENT="public">
   <META NAME="abstract" CONTENT="IBM Zurich Research Laboratory news">
   <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="Zurich ZRL IBM science research technology news STM molecule propeller">
<TITLE>Molecular wheel</TITLE>
</head>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#990066" ALINK="#FF0000">
<IMG SRC="/images/Mastheads/masthead_News.gif" ALT="IBM Zurich Research News" BORDER=0
WIDTH="600" HEIGHT="54" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" Align="top">
<!--GLOBAL NAVIGATION-->
<table WIDTH="600" HEIGHT="17" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" VALIGN="BOTTOM">
  <tr HEIGHT="19"><td VALIGN="BOTTOM" ALIGN="TOP"><a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/">
        <img
    SRC="/images/nav/h_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Home ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="92" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/News/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/n_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ News ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="67" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Products/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/p_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Products ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="86" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Support/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/su_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Support ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="83" HEIGHT="17"
    HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Solutions/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/so_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Business solutions ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="89"
    HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/Partners/"><img
    SRC="/images/nav/pa_b.gif" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Partners ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="84"
    HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a>
        <a HREF="http://www.ibm.com/IBM/"
    onMouseOver="self.status='About IBM' ;return true"><img SRC="/images/nav/ai_b.gif"
    BORDER="0" ALT="[ About IBM ]" ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="99" HEIGHT="17" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td WIDTH="600" BGCOLOR="#000000"><img SRC="/images/clear.gif" BORDER="0" WIDTH="600"
    HEIGHT="9" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" VALIGN="top"></td></tr>
</table>
        <a HREF="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/"><img
    SRC="/images/gotozrlhome.jpg" BORDER="0" ALT="[ Goto ZRL Home ]"></a>

<!--end GLOBAL NAVIGATION-->

<P>
<H1>Discovery of  Molecular Wheel Offers Promise for Design of Nanoscale Devices</H1>
<p><i>Zurich, Switzerland/Toulouse, France, July 24, 1998 --</i> IBM scientists
and a team of international collaborators today reported the discovery of
&quot;molecular wheels&quot;: propeller-shaped molecules that rotate rapidly in a
bearing-like structure formed by surrounding molecules. The scientists
believe this unexpected phenomenon shows great promise for the development
of molecular mechanical devices and further demonstrates the validity of
using single molecules to perform the various functions required in such
devices.
<p>In a paper published today in <i><a href="07.24.covera.gif">Science</a></i>, IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory,
together with colleagues at the French National Center for Scientific
Research (CNRS) in Toulouse, and the Riso National Laboratory in Roskilde,
Denmark, report their design of the propeller-shaped molecules which can
switch between two states -- rotating and immobilized, and the high-speed
molecular rotation which they observed by using a scanning tunneling
microscope (STM).
<p>&quot;Our discovery of the molecular wheel came about from recent molecular
switch experiments in which we were investigating a reversible change in
the shape of specifically designed molecules<sup>*</sup> triggered by a voltage pulse
from the STM tip,&quot; said James Gimzweski, who leads the nano-engineering
effort at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory. &quot;We believe that compared to
other proposed or synthetic molecular mechanisms, the molecular wheel,
which works in a dry state and appears to be wearless, is advantageous for
creating gears and motors at the nanoscale level.&quot;
<p>In viewing the STM images, the researchers found a ring-like object instead
of the molecule that had been there. The object, now in a slightly
different position, shifted by just one-fourth of a nanometer. It evidently
jumped into a tiny space left vacant by an irregularity in the molecular
layer and thus escaped the immobilizing grip of four molecules that
surrounded it closely on one side. An adjacent molecule on the other side
confined its further lateral motion and, in effect, contributed to forming
a bearing for rotation of the central molecule. This rotation was
responsible for the blurred, ring-like appearance of the molecule in the
STM image.
<p>Researchers at CNRS calculated the behavior of the molecular wheel. &quot;Our
calculations show that the thermal energy at room temperature is sufficient
for the molecule to rotate in a bearing formed by irregularity in the
molecular layer as observed, whereas the proximity of molecules in a fully
ordered lattice stops such movement,&quot; said Christian Joachim, who heads the
theoretical effort at CNRS. Such wheels may someday become the smallest
conceivable components of molecular engines.
<p>In 1995, IBM Zurich scientists precisely positioned individual molecules at
room temperature for the first time ever. This led in the following year to
their creation of an abacus with &quot;beads&quot; made of single ball-shaped
molecules to demonstrate new nano-engineering capabilities and,
subsequently, to the realization of an amplifier having a single molecule
as its active part. The enabling tool for this research is the STM,
invented at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory in the early eighties. The
STM's ultrafine tip can be used not only to image a surface with atomic
resolution, but also to manipulate individual atoms and molecules.
<p>The authors of the scientific report published in <i><a href="07.24.covera.gif">Science</a></i> (July 24, 1998)
are James K. Gimzewski, Reto R. Schlittler, and Veronique Langlais of IBM's
Zurich Research Laboratory, Christian Joachim and Hao Tang of CEMES (Center
d'Elaboration de Materiaux et d'Etudes Structurales) at CNRS, and Ib
Johannsen of the Condensed Matter Physics and Chemistry Department at
Riso National Laboratory in Roskilde, Denmark. The project is supported by the
European Union ESPRIT project &quot;Nanowires&quot;, which is partially funded by the
Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science.
<p><sup>*</sup> <font size="-1">The molecules which were used in these experiments are hexa-butyl
decacyclene (HB-DC) with a diameter of about 1.75 nanometers. They consist
of a central conjugated decacyclene core with six t-butyl legs attached to
its peripheral antracene components.</font>
<p><a href="wheel.tif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 1" src="wheel.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 1:
Two STM images on top show a six-lobed 'propeller' molecule marked by an
inner ring in an immobilized state close to four sister molecules (at left)
and in a rotating state when shifted away by one-fourth of a nanometer (at
right). The graphical view of the computer simulation (bottom) illustrates
the structure and the two positions of the molecular wheel.
<p><a href="propeller.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 2" src="propicon.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 2:
Animation of 'propeller' molecule (click on image to start animation).
<p><a href="ofig3a.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3a" src="fig3a.gif"></a><a href="ofig3b.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3b" src="fig3b.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 3 a-b:
STM view of the single molecule immobilized and rotating.
<p><a href="ofig3c.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3c" src="fig3c.gif"></a><a href="ofig3d.gif"><img border=0 alt="Figure 3d" src="fig3d.gif"></a>
<p>Fig. 3 c-d:
Computer graphical view.

<p>
<HR>
<ADDRESS>Communications, <A HREF="/~hug/">Martin Hug</A> <A HREF="mailto:hug zurich.ibm.com">&lt;hug@zurich.ibm.com&gt;</A></ADDRESS>
<BR>

Last modified: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 14:33
<HR>

<!--IBM BOTTOM NAV-->
<TABLE WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0
CELLSPACING=0 VALIGN="TOP"><TR HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0><TD
COLSPAN=2 VALIGN=TOP ALIGN=TOP><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Privacy/"><img
src="/images/nav/privacy_c.gif" ALT="[ Privacy ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=151
HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Legal/"><img src="/images/nav/legal_c.gif"
ALT="[ Legal ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0
VSPACE=0></a><a href="http://www.ibm.com/Search/"><img src="/images/nav/search_c.gif" ALT="[ Search ]"
BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a>
<a href="http://www.ibm.com/Contact/"><img src="/images/nav/contact_c.gif" ALT="[ Contact ]" BORDER=0 ALIGN=LEFT
WIDTH=149 HEIGHT=17 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0></a></TD></TR></TABLE>




--------------117A748B273A--



--------------7574520E12FD--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 13 23:13:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA32627;
	Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:08:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:08:44 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b272d8cafdc9 [208.228.222.171]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:15:05 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Censorious, Divisive, Ad Hominem, Off-topic Posts
Resent-Message-ID: <"0hdKY.0.fz7.ynIJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24544
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:16 PM 11/13/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>This group of late has been receiving divisive and off-topic posts from a
>small group of would-be censors. The proof that censorship is their intent
>is straightforward: shareware and freeware programs are available which
>permit anyone to set e-mail filters to screen out undesired topics and
>individuals. With less effort than they expend on many of their posts,
>these individuals could sanitize their e-mail down to the precise range of
>material that they prefer. However, that is not enough to satisfy them.
>They are disturbed because the "character of the list" is not to their
>liking--which means: they are disturbed by the fact that, even if they set
>up e-mail filters, other members of the list will be receiving material of
>which they do not approve. As such, they are representative of the same
>authoritarian blight which has settled down on this nation, and which is
>destroying it, and those of you who do not approve of what they are doing,
>yet remain silent, are essentially consenting to the loss of your rights.
>Life is a series of choices, and sometimes you have to choose between
>standing on your feet or dropping to your knees.
>
>--Mitchell Jones


This is nonsense.  There is just as much right to expect on topic posts
here as there is for bowlers to expect their lanes to be used for bowling
and not as a target range.  Renting a lane doesn't give one the right to
use bowling pins as pistol targets.  The fact that bowlers can wear ear
protectors is no excuse.

Freedom of speech does not give one the right to speak out of order at a
stockholders meeting or in a courtroom.  The maintenance of order,
confining remarks to the topic at hand and speaking with civility and
respect, is a cornerstone of our democracy.  The great debates at our
country's founding could not have born fruit without such decorum.  That is
not to say that a minority view should be suppressed, but rather that any
view expressed, minority or not, be on topic.

There has historically been a wonderful tolerance on vortex for off topic
material.  However, at some point, enough is enough.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 00:25:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA12268;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:24:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:24:55 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:20:47 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Censorious, Divisive, Ad Hominem, Off-topic Posts
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811140324_MC2-6040-F30F compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"fs-rs2.0.c_2.NvJJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24545
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> There has historically been a wonderful tolerance on vortex for off
topic
material.  However, at some point, enough is enough.

Regards,

Horace Heffner <<


Hear, hear!!!!  Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 01:37:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA20175;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:36:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:36:23 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130307b272fea4e243 [12.72.131.165]>
In-Reply-To: <199811132238.RAA10106 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:33:03 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"UdzTu.0.9x4.NyKJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24546
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed -

  > Personal checks are accepted,
  > payable to Cold Fusion Technology <G>.

Right you are, and thanks for reminding me. My IE subscription is about to
run out.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 01:43:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA22243;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:42:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:42:45 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b272f5bcca64 [12.72.131.165]>
In-Reply-To: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:39:24 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website
Resent-Message-ID: <"sn3iF1.0.TR5.K2LJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24547
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

What Terry B. said.

I don't think you will find any more extreme UFO-nuts on this list than
Terry and I. Old Vulcan saying: only Nixon can go to China. We're Nixon to
your China.  We're saying we *have* done quite a bit of homework on this
stuff and are quite interested in it. It is to your surprise that it is
*you* who have not done your homework, and are getting a rash from people
here for not only off topic posts,  but irrational or uninformed ones as
well. Look what happened to me when I tried to ask about changing the water
on the KF. Got kracked right across my knuckles with a cyber-ruler by a
grumpy Vortexian who's had it with all this crap.

If you haven't done homework or have already forgotten the lessons, then be
quiet and try to catch up. Subscribe to the list Terry mentioned, and
please drop these postings to this list. It's for discussing experimental
anomalous physics, not Art Bell's latest hoax. Please let us have this list
for the former subject, Mitchell. Some people here believe this is a very
important cause, and the dilution of the discussion is not a Good Thing,
and I agree.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 02:45:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA31054;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:44:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:44:57 -0800
Message-ID: <02d601be0fbb$544101c0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Tests
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:41:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zz1gH.0.4b7.eyLJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24548
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You still up, Horace, Rick? :-) More thoughts on the water chemistry.

The colloidal particulates/nanostructures; nMxOySz etc., could be in the
fill water or eroded from the KF materials or PF cell anode.

The metal (M) could be about any species in the water and/or leached out of
the unit by electrochemical erosion (cavitation pitting)or corrosion
(electrochemical action).

That being said,rigorous analysis of the water may be a bigger challenge
than running the unit and doing the calorimetry.

Regards,   Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 03:32:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA07167;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:31:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:31:22 -0800
Message-ID: <02e401be0fc1$d0a176e0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Corrosion and Protection Centre - Short Course (http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/C
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:25:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE0F86.CEFA5860"
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: <"_oURE3.0.vl1.AeMJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24549
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_0026_01BE0F86.CEFA5860
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you think water and corrosion is simple,56,000 Hits on corrosion. :-) 

http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/Course.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE0F86.CEFA5860
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Corrosion and Protection Centre - Short Course.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Corrosion and Protection Centre - Short Course.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/Course.htm
Modified=80E68D2AC10FBE01AC

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE0F86.CEFA5860--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 03:35:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08160;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:34:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:34:19 -0800
Message-ID: <02eb01be0fc2$39fb5fc0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Corrosion Information Server (http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/advice.htm)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:30:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BE0F87.88E58F60"
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: <"nduNT2.0.Q_1.wgMJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24550
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_002D_01BE0F87.88E58F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    =20
    Corrosion Advice?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---   =20
    While we are not able to offer advice on specific corrosion problems =
over the Internet, we do suggest that you raise your problem directly in =
one of the following discussion groups. In our experience, CORROS-L and =
sci.chem.electrochem are likely to be the most fruitful.=20
    We hope you can solve your problem!=20

    Internation Corrosion Council
     ICC Sources of Corrosion Information
     ICC Laboratory Survey=20
    CORROS-L: The Corrosion Discussion List
     Search the CORROS-L archive=20
    Internet newsgroups
     sci.chem.electrochem (corrosion and electrochemistry)
     sci.materials (general materials)
     sci.engr.metallurgy (chemical metallurgy)
     sci.engr.chem (chemical engineering)
     sci.chem.coatings (coatings and surface finishing)
     sci.techniques.microscopy (microscopy)=20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---   =20
    Maintained by: S.B.Lyon umist.ac.uk=20
=1A

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BE0F87.88E58F60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Corrosion Information =
Server</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/advice.htm><!doctype html public =
"-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<META=20
content=3D"corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion materials =
metallurgy coatings"=20
name=3Dkeywords>
<META=20
content=3D"ICC/UMIST Corrosion Information Server: Corrosion and =
Protection Centre UMIST, Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering, =
Corrosion Services Directory"=20
name=3Ddescription>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D/icons/backgrnd.gif bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<UL><IMG alt=3D"UMIST/ICC: Corrosion Information Server"=20
    src=3D"/icons/cis_bann.gif">=20
    <H1>Corrosion Advice?</H1>
    <HR>
    While we are not able to offer advice on specific corrosion problems =
over=20
    the Internet, we do suggest that you raise your problem directly in =
one of=20
    the following discussion groups. In our experience, CORROS-L and=20
    sci.chem.electrochem are likely to be the most fruitful.=20
    <P>We hope you can solve your problem!=20
    <H2>Internation Corrosion Council</H2><IMG =
src=3D"/icons/greendot.gif"><A=20
    href=3D"./icc/sources/sources.htm"> ICC Sources of Corrosion=20
    Information</A><BR><IMG src=3D"/icons/greendot.gif"><A=20
    href=3D"/icc/iccquery.htm"> ICC Laboratory Survey</A>=20
    <H2>CORROS-L: The Corrosion Discussion List</H2><IMG=20
    src=3D"/icons/greendot.gif"><A href=3D"/corros-l/corquery.idc"> =
Search the=20
    CORROS-L archive</A>=20
    <H2>Internet newsgroups</H2><IMG src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A=20
    href=3D"news:sci.chem.electrochem">sci.chem.electrochem =
</A>(corrosion and=20
    electrochemistry)<BR><IMG src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A=20
    href=3D"news:sci.materials">sci.materials </A>(general =
materials)<BR><IMG=20
    src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A=20
    href=3D"news:sci.engr.metallurgy">sci.engr.metallurgy </A>(chemical=20
    metallurgy)<BR><IMG src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A=20
    href=3D"news:sci.engr.chem">sci.engr.chem </A>(chemical =
engineering)<BR><IMG=20
    src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A =
href=3D"news:sci.chem.coatings">sci.chem.coatings=20
    </A>(coatings and surface finishing)<BR><IMG =
src=3D"/icons/bluedot.gif"> <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:sci.techniques.microscopy">sci.techniques.microscopy</A>=20
    (microscopy)=20
    <P>
    <HR>
    Maintained by: <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:s.b.lyon umist.ac.uk">S.B.Lyon@umist.ac.uk</A> =
</UL>=1A</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BE0F87.88E58F60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 03:44:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA12473;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:43:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:43:17 -0800
Message-ID: <030401be0fc3$7b033640$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: ICC Corrosion Survey (http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/corros-l/message.idc?ID=616)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:39:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE0F88.BAACAC80"
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: <"zP_3c1.0.p23.LpMJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24551
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_0034_01BE0F88.BAACAC80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    Corros-L archive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---   =20
    Ductile iron and seawater
    Author: Mike Fortin=20
    Sent on: 27 Sep 1996 (at 12:28:57)
    Reply to: amjfen1 PEABODY.SCT.UCARB.COM
   =20
   =20
   =20
    At 10:38 AM 9/26/96 -0500, you wrote:=20
    >Dear Members:
    >
    >Is a valve housing made of ductile iron, (65-45-12) or in UK it is
    >called nodular spherical type, suitable for seawater application. =
In
    >the raw form without any coatings. Would the initial layer of rust=20
    >prevent/preserve the main bulk from rusing all through? Is this
    >material suitable for a process for cow milk.
    >thanks for your reply you in advance.
    >
    >
   =20
    Dear fdi (Do you have a name?),
   =20
    Ductile iron would not be at all suitable for milk.
   =20
    Its suitability for seawater is dependant on factors such as =
expected life,
    velocity, temperature, and consequences of failure. There is =
literature on=20
    the corrosion of irons in seawater. Places to start might be Volume =
13
    (Corrosion) of the ASM Metals Handbook, the old INCO Corrosion =
Engineering
    bulletins (now published by NiDI), or a literature search of NACE =
publications.
   =20
    Regards,=20
    Michael J. Fortin
    Corrosion & Materials Engineering
    Union Carbide Corp.
    South Charleston, West Virginia, USA
   =20
    amjfen1 peabody.sct.ucarb.com
    304-747-1882
    Fax.: 304-766-7523
   =20
    | All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect |
    =1A

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE0F88.BAACAC80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>ICC Corrosion Survey</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/corros-l/message.idc?ID=3D616><!doctype =
html public "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<META=20
content=3D"corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion materials =
metallurgy coatings"=20
name=3Dkeywords>
<META=20
content=3D"ICC/UMIST Corrosion Information Server: Corrosion and =
Protection Centre UMIST, Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering, =
Corrosion Services Directory"=20
name=3Ddescription>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<UL><BODY background =3D /icons/backgrnd.gif>
    <H1>Corros-L archive</H1>
    <HR>
    <B>Ductile iron and seawater</B><BR>Author: <I>Mike Fortin =
</I><BR>Sent on:=20
    27 Sep 1996 (at 12:28:57)<BR>Reply to: <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:amjfen1 PEABODY.SCT.UCARB.COM">amjfen1@PEABODY.SCT.UCARB.C=
OM</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>At=20
    10:38 AM 9/26/96 -0500, you wrote: <BR>&gt;Dear =
Members:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Is a=20
    valve housing made of ductile iron, (65-45-12) or in UK it =
is<BR>&gt;called=20
    nodular spherical type, suitable for seawater application. =
In<BR>&gt;the raw=20
    form without any coatings. Would the initial layer of rust=20
    <BR>&gt;prevent/preserve the main bulk from rusing all through? Is=20
    this<BR>&gt;material suitable for a process for cow =
milk.<BR>&gt;thanks for=20
    your reply you in advance.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR><BR>Dear fdi (Do you =
have a=20
    name?),<BR><BR>Ductile iron would not be at all suitable for=20
    milk.<BR><BR>Its suitability for seawater is dependant on factors =
such as=20
    expected life,<BR>velocity, temperature, and consequences of =
failure. There=20
    is literature on <BR>the corrosion of irons in seawater. Places to =
start=20
    might be Volume 13<BR>(Corrosion) of the ASM Metals Handbook, the =
old INCO=20
    Corrosion Engineering<BR>bulletins (now published by NiDI), or a =
literature=20
    search of NACE publications.<BR><BR>Regards, <BR>Michael J.=20
    Fortin<BR>Corrosion &amp; Materials Engineering<BR>Union Carbide=20
    Corp.<BR>South Charleston, West Virginia,=20
    USA<BR><BR>amjfen1 peabody.sct.ucarb.com<BR>304-747-1882<BR>Fax.:=20
    304-766-7523<BR><BR>| All opinions expressed are my own and do not=20
    necessarily reflect |<BR></TABLE>=1A</UL></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE0F88.BAACAC80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 03:55:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA14803;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:54:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:54:30 -0800
Message-ID: <031301be0fc5$0be53fe0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: ICC Corrosion Survey (http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/corros-l/message.idc?ID=2826)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:50:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE0F8A.42E8A940"
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: <"lFnS53.0.9d3.szMJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24552
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_003B_01BE0F8A.42E8A940
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    Corros-L archive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---   =20
    Copper corrosion in hot domestic/potable water
    Author: Stein W Osterhus
    Sent on: 16 Feb 1998 (at 23:07:22)
    Reply to: Stein.W.Osterhus CIVIL.SINTEF.NO
   =20
   =20
   =20
    At 00:52 14.02.98 EST, you wrote:
    >Ron -
    >
    >Do you really mean 160 degrees Centigrade?
    >
    >Pitting occurs in certain aggressive hard waters with a pH <7.8, =
CO2 > 17
    ppm,=20
    >SO4 >17 ppm and SO4/Cl >3.1. Three types of pitting (I,II,III) are =
described
    >in the literature.
    >
    >Paul
    >
   =20
    I would like to add a comment to this.
    The water quality you describe looks like a water susceptible to =
type I=20
    pitting. However, type I pitting typically occurs in cold water. The
    pitting types commonly described in the literature are (as you =
mentioned):
   =20
    Type I pitting (cold water pitting):=20
    Occurs in hard, cold, well waters, pH=3D7-7.8, high SO4/Cl and high =
SO4/HCO3.
    Initiation factors are residual carbon film, deposits, flow =
stagnation
    early in pipe life, etc.
    The scale typically consists of cuprite with overlaying malachite.=20
   =20
    Type II pitting (hot water pitting):
    Occurs in hot water, pH<7.2, high SO4/HCO3.
    Initiation factors are high temperature, particles, etc.
    The scale typically consists of cuprite with overlaying =
bronchantite, and=20
    some malachite (both are green).
   =20
    Type III pitting (soft water pitting):
    Occurs in soft waters with pH>8.
    Initiation factors are flow stagnation early in pipe life, high pH, =
etc.=20
    The scale typically consists of cuprite with overlaying =
bronchantite, and
    some malachite.
   =20
    High chlorine residual may also be an important initiation factor =
for
    copper pitting.
   =20
    However, some copper pitting cases do not fit into any of these =
categories,
    and some pitting cases may be considered as borderline cases between
    different categories. To confuse the issue further, there are also =
reports=20
    on type I pitting occurring in hot water, and type II pitting =
occurring in
    cold water.
   =20
   =20
    Stein
   =20
   =20
   =20
    *******************************************************
    Stein W. Osterhus
    E-mail: Stein.W.Osterhus civil.sintef.no=20
    Phone: +47 73 59 23 02
    FAX: +47 73 59 23 76
   =20
    SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering
    Department of Water and Wastewater
    Klabuveien 153
    N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY
    http://www.sintef.no=20
    ******************************************************** =1A

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE0F8A.42E8A940
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>ICC Corrosion Survey</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/corros-l/message.idc?ID=3D2826><!doctype=
 html public "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<META=20
content=3D"corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion corrosion materials =
metallurgy coatings"=20
name=3Dkeywords>
<META=20
content=3D"ICC/UMIST Corrosion Information Server: Corrosion and =
Protection Centre UMIST, Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering, =
Corrosion Services Directory"=20
name=3Ddescription>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<UL><BODY background =3D /icons/backgrnd.gif>
    <H1>Corros-L archive</H1>
    <HR>
    <B>Copper corrosion in hot domestic/potable water</B><BR>Author: =
<I>Stein W=20
    Osterhus</I><BR>Sent on: 16 Feb 1998 (at 23:07:22)<BR>Reply to: <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:Stein.W.Osterhus CIVIL.SINTEF.NO">Stein.W.Osterhus@CIVIL.S=
INTEF.NO</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>At=20
    00:52 14.02.98 EST, you wrote:<BR>&gt;Ron -<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Do you =
really=20
    mean 160 degrees Centigrade?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Pitting occurs in =
certain=20
    aggressive hard waters with a pH &lt;7.8, CO2 &gt; 17<BR>ppm, =
<BR>&gt;SO4=20
    &gt;17 ppm and SO4/Cl &gt;3.1. Three types of pitting (I,II,III) are =

    described<BR>&gt;in the =
literature.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Paul<BR>&gt;<BR><BR>I=20
    would like to add a comment to this.<BR>The water quality you =
describe looks=20
    like a water susceptible to type I <BR>pitting. However, type I =
pitting=20
    typically occurs in cold water. The<BR>pitting types commonly =
described in=20
    the literature are (as you mentioned):<BR><BR>Type I pitting (cold =
water=20
    pitting): <BR>Occurs in hard, cold, well waters, pH=3D7-7.8, high =
SO4/Cl and=20
    high SO4/HCO3.<BR>Initiation factors are residual carbon film, =
deposits,=20
    flow stagnation<BR>early in pipe life, etc.<BR>The scale typically =
consists=20
    of cuprite with overlaying malachite. <BR><BR>Type II pitting (hot =
water=20
    pitting):<BR>Occurs in hot water, pH&lt;7.2, high =
SO4/HCO3.<BR>Initiation=20
    factors are high temperature, particles, etc.<BR>The scale typically =

    consists of cuprite with overlaying bronchantite, and <BR>some =
malachite=20
    (both are green).<BR><BR>Type III pitting (soft water =
pitting):<BR>Occurs in=20
    soft waters with pH&gt;8.<BR>Initiation factors are flow stagnation =
early in=20
    pipe life, high pH, etc. <BR>The scale typically consists of cuprite =
with=20
    overlaying bronchantite, and<BR>some malachite.<BR><BR>High chlorine =

    residual may also be an important initiation factor for<BR>copper=20
    pitting.<BR><BR>However, some copper pitting cases do not fit into =
any of=20
    these categories,<BR>and some pitting cases may be considered as =
borderline=20
    cases between<BR>different categories. To confuse the issue further, =
there=20
    are also reports <BR>on type I pitting occurring in hot water, and =
type II=20
    pitting occurring in<BR>cold=20
    =
water.<BR><BR><BR>Stein<BR><BR><BR><BR>**********************************=
*********************<BR>Stein=20
    W. Osterhus<BR>E-mail: Stein.W.Osterhus civil.sintef.no <BR>Phone: =
+47 73 59=20
    23 02<BR>FAX: +47 73 59 23 76<BR><BR>SINTEF Civil and Environmental=20
    Engineering<BR>Department of Water and Wastewater<BR>Klabuveien=20
    153<BR>N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY<BR>http://www.sintef.no=20
    <BR>********************************************************</TABLE> =

=1A</UL></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE0F8A.42E8A940--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 05:05:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA21360;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:57:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:57:06 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2732f27c021 [208.228.222.210]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:03:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Tests
Resent-Message-ID: <"pUOIc.0.gD5.YuNJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24553
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:41 AM 11/14/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>You still up, Horace, Rick? :-) More thoughts on the water chemistry.
>
>The colloidal particulates/nanostructures; nMxOySz etc., could be in the
>fill water or eroded from the KF materials or PF cell anode.
>
>The metal (M) could be about any species in the water and/or leached out of
>the unit by electrochemical erosion (cavitation pitting)or corrosion
>(electrochemical action).
>
>That being said,rigorous analysis of the water may be a bigger challenge
>than running the unit and doing the calorimetry.
>
>Regards,   Frederick


Still at it.

Another thought.  A colloidal suspension might provide catalyst sites for
multi-bubble sonoluminescence surface type effects, similar to that in Russ
George's type of devices.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 05:24:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21407;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <033f01be0fd0$c6e58f60$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Tests
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 06:14:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"amOmX2.0.NE5.RGOJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24554
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Tests

Horace wrote:


>At 3:41 AM 11/14/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>You still up, Horace, Rick? :-) More thoughts on the water chemistry.
>>
>>The colloidal particulates/nanostructures; nMxOySz etc., could be in the
>>fill water or eroded from the KF materials or PF cell anode.
>>
>>The metal (M) could be about any species in the water and/or leached out
of
>>the unit by electrochemical erosion (cavitation pitting)or corrosion
>>(electrochemical action).
>>
>>That being said,rigorous analysis of the water may be a bigger challenge
>>than running the unit and doing the calorimetry.
>>
>>Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>Still at it.
>
>Another thought.  A colloidal suspension might provide catalyst sites for
>multi-bubble sonoluminescence surface type effects, similar to that in Russ
>George's type of devices.

I think so. The metals could come off the
Ultrasonic Driver or the "Target".

The Erosion-Corrosion Website in the Corrosion
Information Server that I Spammed Vortex with
gives some good info on this stuff.

I think I might hang it up and go play checkers with Jed Rothwell at the
Senior Citizens Center.   :-)

Best,  Frederick


>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 05:38:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28818;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:37:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:37:43 -0800
Message-ID: <033401be0fcd$0e9c7700$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Materials Performance (http://www.metalogic.be/MatWeb/reading/air/mmatm.htm)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:47:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE0F92.38DB71A0"
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: <"LsI3i.0.C27.dUOJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24555
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_0042_01BE0F92.38DB71A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

Atmosphere : Materials Performance

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

 Overview
A brief overview of the general corrosion performance of some common =
metals in different "classes" of atmospheres (humid indoor atmosphere, =
rural, industrial, marine) is given in Table 360 below. Materials =
covered include: aluminum, cast iron, steel, stainless steel (18-8 =
types), copper, nickel, tin, zinc, and magnesium.

The ratings have the following meaning:

    a.. A =3D (slightly) Attacked=20
    b.. R =3D (fully) Resistant=20
    c.. S =3D Severe attack
Aluminum  Humid Rural  Industrial Marine =20
            R R R  R=20
            Cast iron A A S A=20
            Carbon Steel A A A A=20
            Stainless Steel R R R A=20
            Copper  A A A A=20
            Nickel  R R R A=20
            Tin A A A A=20
            Zinc  A A A A=20
            Magnesium A A  R S=20
   =20
 Specific Materials=20
    a.. Aluminum Alloys=20
    b.. Iron and Steels=20
    c.. Stainless Steels=20
    d.. Nickel Alloys=20
    e.. Copper & Copper Alloys=20
    f.. Zinc=20
    g.. Magnesium=20
    h.. Cadmium=20
    i.. Lead=20
    j.. Titanium

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

Related Information
    a.. Corrosion Hazards=20
    b.. Materials Info=20
    c.. Atmospheres=20
    d.. Materials Performance - Corrosives=20

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE0F92.38DB71A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Atmosphere : Materials =
Performance</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.metalogic.be/MatWeb/reading/air/mmatm.htm><!DOCTYPE =
HTML SYSTEM "html.dtd">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D../pics/backdg.gif bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<HR SIZE=3D5>

<H1 align=3Dcenter>Atmosphere : Materials Performance</H1>
<HR SIZE=3D5>

<H2><IMG align=3Dbaseline src=3D"../pics/yelbul.gif"> =
<A>Overview</A></H2>
<P>A brief overview of the general corrosion performance of some common =
metals=20
in different &quot;classes&quot; of atmospheres (humid indoor =
atmosphere, rural,=20
industrial, marine) is given in Table 360 below. Materials covered =
include:=20
aluminum, cast iron, steel, stainless steel (18-8 types), copper, =
nickel, tin,=20
zinc, and magnesium.</P>
<P>The ratings have the following meaning:</P>
<UL>
    <LI>A =3D (slightly) Attacked=20
    <LI>R =3D (fully) Resistant=20
    <LI>S =3D Severe attack</LI></UL>
<TABLE border=3D1>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD rowSpan=3D2 vAlign=3Dbottom COLSTART =3D 1><B>Aluminum =
</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2><B>Humid</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3><B>Rural</B> </TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4><B>Industrial</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5><B>Marine</B> </TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>R </TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>R</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Cast iron</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>S</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Carbon Steel</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Stainless Steel</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Copper </B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Nickel </B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Tin</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Zinc </B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>A</TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 1><B>Magnesium</B></TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 2>A</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 3>A </TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 4>R</TD>
        <TD COLSTART =3D 5>S</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<H2><IMG align=3Dbaseline src=3D"../pics/yelbul.gif"> <A>Specific =
Materials=20
</A></H2>
<UL>
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/alatm.htm">Aluminum Alloys</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/fiatm.htm">Iron and Steels</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/ssatm.htm">Stainless Steels</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/niatm.htm">Nickel Alloys</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/cuatm.htm">Copper &amp; Copper Alloys</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/znatm.htm">Zinc</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/mgatm.htm">Magnesium</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/cdatm.htm">Cadmium</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/pbatm.htm">Lead</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/tiatm.htm">Titanium</A></LI></UL>
<HR SIZE=3D5>

<H4>Related Information</H4>
<UL>
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/e_atmccc.htm">Corrosion Hazards</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../material/m_.htm">Materials Info</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../air/e_atmccc.htm">Atmospheres</A>=20
    <LI><A href=3D"../mat-envs/mmeee.htm">Materials Performance - =
Corrosives</A>=20
    </LI></UL></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE0F92.38DB71A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 08:41:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06381;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:40:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:40:45 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:35:36 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: This disruption must stop!
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811141139_MC2-6031-1968 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"PPCVc3.0.dZ1.DARJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24556
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; William Beaty >INTERNET:billb eskimo.com

This disruptive invasion by aliens from outer space has gone on long enough.
Something is seriously wrong here when people like Sevoir and Little quit or
threaten to quit. I and many others have worked hard over the years to provide
serious, carefully written content to this forum. It is one of the few places
in the world where you can discuss late-breaking developments in cold fusion
and other Peculiar Energy Science without being swamped by pathological
skeptics on one side and perpetual motion machine fruitcakes on the other.
This forum serves a handy and practical purpose. It allows me to communicate
with hundreds of people without constantly shuffling e-mail addresses and
re-sending messages. When I was working on the Mizuno book and again during
preparations for the kinetic furnace testing, I received many valuable
suggestions on this forum and via private e-mail. Many people were curious
about the kinetic furnace tests; I am happy to oblige them by posting the
numbers. They should not be forced to wade through page after page of
off-topic, disruptive, politicized bullshit.

(The Mizuno book, by the way, is being printed and it should be shipped to us
soon. Contact me if I promised you a fee copy.)

An occasional flame-fest livens things up. Amusing and interesting off-topic
postings are welcome. But Certain People have been abusing the rules and
poisoning the atmosphere, and I am fed up with it. There are rules here,
posted for all to see. Certain People have repeatedly broken every one, even
the administrative rule about "Do not copy everything when quoting messages."

I ask that Bill Beaty to issue a warning and ban the troublemakers if this
continues. This step has never been necessary in the past, and I hope it is
not needed now, but Extreme Measures may be called for.

And let us not confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with free speech. As
Horace Heffner eloquently put it: "Freedom of speech does not give one the
right to speak out of order at a stockholders meeting or in a courtroom.  The
maintenance of order, confining remarks to the topic at hand and speaking with
civility and respect, is a cornerstone of our democracy." Amen! A
stockholder's meeting and a courtroom are good examples. More pertinent
examples are the informal societies and clubs which are deeply rooted in
Anglo-American traditions. Things like church group meetings, amateur science
clubs & societies, book clubs, informal symposia, public libraries, the
Chautauqua movement, various Chowder & Marching Societies, volunteer fire
departments, and special interest groups devoted to fighting disease or
illiteracy, and so on, and so forth. In 1831 de Tocqueville noted that
Americans will form a society or a committee at the drop of a hat for just
about any purpose, trivial or noble. I happen to be a member of the Joseph
Heco Society which puts out a bilingual semiannual newsletter to commemorate
and discuss the first Japanese-American citizen and the first professional
Japanese / English translator. When she was 75 and could barely walk, my
mother taught jail inmates how to read. This kind of volunteerism requires
discipline and order.

Someone suggested we form "A New list, without Alien Photos." What will
prevent troublemakers from disrupting that list? We will form another, and
another, and what will stop them from breaking the rules every time and
shutting us down? No, I think the answer is to enforce the rules we agreed to
when we joined. This experiment in Internet communication has been working
well for years. It has proved beneficial, interesting and amusing to many
people. We should not allow a handful of people stop it, or vitiate it.

I do not want to install more and more filters either. That is not the answer.
When people ask me where they can learn about cold fusion, I point them to our
web page (which has pointers to many others, like Logajan and Swartz), and I
suggest they join this group. What should I tell them in the future? "There is
no place to talk about cold fusion because every time we start a group, a gang
of disruptive jerks come in and drowns us out with arguments about [aliens /
conspiracies / Monica Lewinsky / politics / secret sex files]."

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 09:02:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA13734;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:02:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:02:12 -0800
From: mrb ap.net
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981114090153.008522c0 mail.ap.net>
X-Sender: mrb mail.ap.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:01:53 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
In-Reply-To: <199811141139_MC2-6031-1968 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RXtx02.0.WM3.KURJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24557
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I want to applaud Jed's last post!

It was exactly what needed to be said.

Mark Goldes
Magnetic Power Inc.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 09:18:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18616;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:17:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:17:24 -0800
Message-ID: <364DE518.4D02 bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:16:24 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"k6pwW2.0.kY4.ZiRJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24558
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In defiance of a Monteverdesque knuckle rappin', may I offer the
possibility that GA water has dissolved gasses which remain in solution
as long as the water is below ground but outgas in shipment to Bow.  We
have a Radon gas problem in homes here in GA.  The reactions might
require a small ionizing "spark" to initiate.  

It might even be simple oxygen in the water which makes the difference. 
This could explain all sorts of water-vortex ou device negative results.

Pressurized transport containers might make the difference.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 09:50:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA28113;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:49:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:49:10 -0800
Message-ID: <035901be0ff6$97e521a0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:45:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"3VZ06.0.At6.LASJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24559
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: mrb ap.net <mrb@ap.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!

Mark Goldes wrote:


>I want to applaud Jed's last post!
>
>It was exactly what needed to be said.

Total agreement here!  But hope it's not his "last post".   :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>Mark Goldes
>Magnetic Power Inc.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:04:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32561;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:03:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:03:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981114130958.00b8be50 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:10:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Chiral Vacuum
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vCgyQ.0.hy7.PNSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24560
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The following is a quote from the Cartan website...

>>With all the huzzah about the expanding universe there is an implicit
notion 
>>that there is a center of symmetry about which the expansion
>>takes place. Homogeneity, isotropy are cornerstones of the cosmological 
>>principle, which under closer scrutiny appears to have
>>defects. Could there be another defect in that the Universe does not have a 
>>center of symmetry?

>>How would such a defect be detected?

>>It is suggested herein that the radiation impedance of 
>>free space may not be exactly equal to the square root of the ratio of the 
>>vacuum magnetic permeability divided by the vacuum electric 
>>permittivity. It is straightforward to show that a constitutive tensor 
>>relating D to both E and B, as well as H to B and E, can be arranged 
>>such that all of the Lorentz properties currently attributed to the
vacuum are
>>still valid. The only change would be in a conformal 
>>factor related to "optical activity" of the universe. The only observable
>>electromagnetic effect would be that the impedance of 
>>freespace is soemwhat different from the perfect Lorentz background.
There is
>>some reason to speculate that this defect is of the 
>>order of the ratio of the Hall impedance to the classic freespace
impedance. 
>>That is, the defect which relates to a lack of a center of 
>>symmetry of the universe is related to the fundamental charge on the
electron!

>>Such a lack of a center of symmetry could also influence 
>>spinor solutions, for they would travel with different speeds inbound vs.
>>outbound 

The hall impedence being some 26 kohms, freespace around 377 ohms.
The resulting variation in Z based on using the hall value is
in the 1/100th percent range. 

The subject of chirality in the universe touches on many subjects.
Why, for example, do all living things use the right hand (L)
version of organic molecules? 

On the other hand, astrophysical analysis reveals the existance
of the "Great Attractor", an area around the southern cross where
all of the matter in the viewable universe seems to be streaming.
Not that there's some huge thing there, but it's where the
center of mass is. Anyone want to discuss this? 

K.





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:11:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02354;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:09:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:09:45 -0800
Message-ID: <364DC7A6.5544 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:10:46 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
References: <199811141139_MC2-6031-1968 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"muGpB1.0.ia.fTSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24561
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

(snip)

YES!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:14:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04124;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:13:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:13:07 -0800
Message-ID: <037201be0ff9$ef467cc0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:09:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ljUIe3.0.G01.oWSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24562
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 10:18 AM
Subject: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water

Terry wrote:


>In defiance of a Monteverdesque knuckle rappin', may I offer the
>possibility that GA water has dissolved gasses which remain in solution
>as long as the water is below ground but outgas in shipment to Bow.  We
>have a Radon gas problem in homes here in GA.  The reactions might
>require a small ionizing "spark" to initiate.
>
>It might even be simple oxygen in the water which makes the difference.
>This could explain all sorts of water-vortex ou device negative results.
>
>Pressurized transport containers might make the difference.

Whack! :-) True in part Terry, but there are Georgia Clay Nanoparticles
(Fuller's Earth or
Attapulgite) mostly Magnesium Aluminosilcates
contaminated with eroded Tektites from meteor impact millions of years ago,
which are high in FeO and TiO2 or FexOy, not to mention Barite, BaSO4.

Then there is the sweat from Rednecks.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Terry
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:28:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09563;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:25:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:25:55 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:25:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199811141825.KAA20744 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: Bill Beaty; Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NQF_2.0.LL2.piSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24563
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>This disruptive invasion by aliens from outer space has gone on long enough.
>Something is seriously wrong here when people like Sevoir and Little quit or
>threaten to quit. I and many others have worked hard over the years to provide
>serious, carefully written content to this forum. It is one of the few places
>in the world where you can discuss late-breaking developments in cold fusion
>and other Peculiar Energy Science without being swamped by pathological
>skeptics on one side and perpetual motion machine fruitcakes on the other.

Thanks Jed, and I hope there is something Bill Beaty can or will do.  I
haven't, and won't read any of the other responses to this post because I
expect the usual bantor.  I have said it recently, guys, please quit all
this nonsense.

I have been debating whether to drop vortex myself due to 40 emails of junk,
and an occaisional interesting article.  At least it used to be that the
articles I wasn't interested in were about claims toward new energy devices.
Now, the claims are all about aliens, little quips and jokes that could be
sent directly to the person they were intended rather than come through my
email basket.

Bill, please try to do something to drop the comments that are not about new
energy devices aside from the announcement that "Hey guys, FYI, there is
something going on over here in this other forum about aliens and signals
from some star system".  

No one, myself included wants messages about aliens banned.  This just isn't
an "alien discussion group" forum.  Now if you have seen an alien spacecraft
and can describe their propulsion system, or their power system, then fine.
But bantor about whether or not we have found SETI signals is not what this
group is supposed to be about.

I hope vortex survives, but most of the people who have important things to
say are no longer even listening in.  I delete 99 percent of vortex email
now as it is almost entirely unrelated to energy any more.

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:31:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11693;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:30:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:30:37 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:26:47 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811141329_MC2-603C-A7A9 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"R55Gh3.0.Ws2.CnSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24564
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Terry writes:

    In defiance of a Monteverdesque knuckle rappin', may I offer the
    possibility that GA water has dissolved gasses which remain in solution
    as long as the water is below ground but outgas in shipment to Bow.

Actually, it isn't Georgia water, it is North Georgia well water that seems
to work. Pope reports that Atlanta city water produces no heat. I do not
know how carefully he made this observation. Perhaps something else disrupted
the effect and he fixed it without knowing. I do not think he has made
carefully controlled, incremental tests of one parameter at a time.

If outgassing was the problem I suppose prototype machines would gradually
stop working, because they have not always been perfectly watertight. Pope
and Perkins did not report that the effect fades away.

Perhaps solids in the water precipitate out and stick to the walls of the
plastic gallon jugs. We might make it work by shaking the container to
re-mix the fluid.



    Pressurized transport containers might make the difference.

We could test this hypothesis by leaving a gallon jug of water in the car
before testing it in Cumming. I do not drive much, but Pope does I think.
Maybe Terry can chauffeur some water around for a month?

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 10:44:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15813;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:43:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:43:23 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:43:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199811141843.KAA22628 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: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
Resent-Message-ID: <"UzD883.0._s3.BzSJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24565
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Ross Tessien wrote:
>> I have been looking for this "Rosetta Stone" piece of information for a
>> couple of years now, and just found it.  
>
>This IS pretty significant to your theory.  Congratulations and thanks for
>sharing!
>
>BTW, where are we in the current cycle?
>

We are just climbing toward solar maximum.  This past minimum the maximum
aether flow was out of the southern hemisphere of the sun.  As we approach
solar maximum, the aether flow out of north and south becomes equal as it
transitions toward the northern hemisphere being the primary emission path
of aether.  You can think of the core emitting the aether as oscillating
along the rotation axis, slightly, north south during each cycle.

the axis of a rotating fluidized bed that is gravitationally bound, is the
path of least resistance for aether flow.  So the excess aether begins
flowing outward in the high lattitudes.  Likewise, during the reduction in
flow, the particles of the sun 'fall' downward in the southern hemisphere as
the fluidization is falling in that region.  Whether the fluidization is
increasing, or decreasing, is one parameter that leads to the polarity of
the solar magnetic field.

It is a little hard to understand this stuff if you have never worked with
fluidized beds of particles.  One way to think of it in simple terms is to
imagine those vertical wind tunnels where people go to "skydive" above a fan
blowing air upwards (for fun) fast enough that they just float.

What you can do with those things, is you make the wind tunnel conical with
the large end near the top.  That way, the higher you go, the slower the
wind velocity.  The persons terminal falling velocity is fixed by body mass,
aerodynamics etc.  So with a cone, the higher the person goes the slower the
air motion and the less the buoyancy.  If you did it the other way around,
you could blow them right up and out of the top of the tunnel!

Anyway, the flow of aether out of the sun along any path is expanding like
that, so the ability to float the particles of the sun is decreasing with
radius.

So, if the flow velocity increases, all of the particles rise up to a new
radius and again attain equilibrium.  

The gist is, we should see changes in the solar behavior appear near the
poles first, and then proceed down toward the equator.  We already know that
this is the case as far as sun spots are concerned (look up "butterfly
pattern" and you will get lot's of hits).  But this solar maximum
transition, we have Ulysees orbiting the poles, and SOHO back on line
watching the solar disk at eccliptic lattitudes, along with Pioneer,
Voyager, IMP, YOKOH, etc. satellites monitoring the solar particle emissions
in 3D all at the same time.  

I'll have to look in on which pole Ulysees is flying past during maximum.
But what is surprising to everyone, is that as we approach maximum, the
solar wind velocities in certain places are dropping.  Most people don't
know about the paper I mentioned.  At least I heard no mention of it at the
SOHO conference in Maine, and those were a group of guys that are the PI's
of probably half or more of the SOHO instruments.

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:12:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11090;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:09:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:09:33 -0800
Message-ID: <364E0DA0.2929 bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:09:20 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
References: <199811141329_MC2-603C-A7A9 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sB2BZ.0.8j2.zDUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24566
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

<snip>

> We could test this hypothesis by leaving a gallon jug of water in the car
> before testing it in Cumming. I do not drive much, but Pope does I think.
> Maybe Terry can chauffeur some water around for a month?

Let me get this straight, you want me to drive around N. GA with plastic
milk jugs full of a clear liquid in the back of my car.  

Uh huh, right.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:15:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14715;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:13:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:13:37 -0800
Message-ID: <03ac01be100a$c4894380$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:09:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"HFY5e3.0.kb3.mHUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24568
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water

Terry wrote:


>Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> We could test this hypothesis by leaving a gallon jug of water in the car
>> before testing it in Cumming. I do not drive much, but Pope does I think.
>> Maybe Terry can chauffeur some water around for a month?
>
>Let me get this straight, you want me to drive around N. GA with plastic
>milk jugs full of a clear liquid in the back of my car.
>
>Uh huh, right.

ROFL! What more could be said. :-)

FJS
>
>Terry
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:16:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11661;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:10:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:10:34 -0800
Message-ID: <03a701be100a$56e4b8a0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:06:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"-Zia52.0.6s2.wEUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24567
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 <Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:31 AM
Subject: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water


Jed wrote:
>
>Terry writes:
>
>    In defiance of a Monteverdesque knuckle rappin', may I offer the
>    possibility that GA water has dissolved gasses which remain in solution
>    as long as the water is below ground but outgas in shipment to Bow.
>
>Actually, it isn't Georgia water, it is North Georgia well water that seems
>to work. Pope reports that Atlanta city water produces no heat.

This figures. I brought this up with Scott many months ago when he was doing
the Potatov? tests.

He tried some water "from a nearby quarry" as opposed to the chlorinated
Austin water with
nil results.

Water pH or pD tracks the barometric pressure/CO2 concentration as well as
local concentraions of NOx, NH3, O3, and SOx, all of which dissolve in the
water and change the
CORROSION of the equipment materials.

That is why I posted a Barrage of Links on
MATERIAL CORROSION this morning.The keyword "corrosion" brought up over
53,000 hits on the internet, putting it about third after "erotica" in
importance.  :-)
>
>Perhaps solids in the water precipitate out and stick to the walls of the
>plastic gallon jugs. We might make it work by shaking the container to
>re-mix the fluid.

If the pH or pD changes by a fraction of a point, you could be out of
business. This is why knowing the make up of the water and it's
interaction with the materials in the system
are VERY IMPORTANT.
>
>Pressurized transport containers might make the difference.

Sealed containers as opposed to pressurized, with little or no exposure to
the local atmospheric (pollution) conditions might suffice.

Regards,   Frederick

>
>- Jed
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:19:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17943;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:18:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:18:44 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b2739222bd59 [208.228.222.40]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:25:20 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"n-ENS3.0.HO4.aMUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24569
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Could the difference between the NH and GA tests be in the lab geometry?
The flow measurement is sensitive to ambient conditions.  In addition,
there may be some form of heat feedback loop due to external air flow.  A
vortex near the duct exhaust could heat the outside of the duct and produce
an increase in the downstream temperature reading, for example.  It would
be nice to have pictures of the two setups, one that works and one that
doesn't.


At 11:29 AM 11/13/98, Mike Carrell wrote:
[snip]
>You do this sort of thing is very small steps. As harmless as this seems, it
>may not be so. What needs to be done is to have a system that works stably
>and then characterize it, looking for internal phenomena such as sound
>spectra that may be signatures of an operable configuration, as Ed Storms
>can evaluate Pd cathodes for promise in CF cells.


It is very good advice to go one step at a time.  Also, once you have what
appears to be a working free energy device it is very important to leave it
alone and try to build a replica for experimentation.  In this case using a
replica is doubly important because the working device appears to be self
destructive.  The rotor wear will eventually render it inoperable.  It
seems like the most prudent approach would be to first attempt to get at
least *two* setups working in GA. This then provides the freedom to change
one of them one step at a time and/or take it to another lab.  Additng
additional instrumentation to prove the device really is over unity seems
like the first logical step.

It would be very interesting to see if pumping the water from a barrel and
dumping the outflow back into the barrel for degassing/debubbling changes
the performance.  It the device still works in that mode it is then clear
adding a flowmeter and other devices in the water flow should have not much
effect.

>
>Ed is making some small steps in this direction. At present there is neither
>staff nor funding necessary to mount the required R&D project to understand
>the KF.

The main problem is having good evidence that the device really is over
unity.  Once you have that, the funding should be easily available.  Scott
Little has offered free instrumentaion and an independent verification of
the functioning of the device.  If it really works then this is an offer
that should be very welcome.  The price is certainly right!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:22:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18366;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:19:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:19:56 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <364D9CF0.16B774BA mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:08:32 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New list
References: <199811132128.PAA18981 mail11.jump.net> <3.0.1.32.19981113171132.00763a00@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FfLG-3.0.oU4.gNUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24570
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
 
> When such a list is in place, I will unsubscribe from Vortex-L.
> 
> Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little

Hi Scott,

I would miss your posts, so please tell me how how
to subscribe to the new list when it is created.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 12:33:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22504;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:31:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:31:37 -0800
Message-ID: <364E12DC.2FD5 bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:31:40 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
References: <199811141329_MC2-603C-A7A9 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SrltX1.0.YV5.eYUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24571
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
> To: Vortex
> 
> Terry writes:
> 
>     In defiance of a Monteverdesque knuckle rappin', may I offer the
>     possibility that GA water has dissolved gasses which remain in solution
>     as long as the water is below ground but outgas in shipment to Bow.
> 
> Actually, it isn't Georgia water, it is North Georgia well water that seems
> to work. 

<snip>

Interesting.  Do you have a Geiger Counter?  Would it detect Radon
decay?

This could also support the Sparber ceramic nanoprobe theory, since
Atlanta water comes from Lake Lanier where it would have adequate time
for settling of the particles.

This could be very important.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 13:00:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA30870;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:59:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:59:32 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b273997a4344 [12.72.131.165]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981114130958.00b8be50 cnct.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:56:07 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Chiral Vacuum
Resent-Message-ID: <"UemQ.0.CY7.pyUJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24572
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith -


 > Anyone want to discuss this?

I just wish I could understand it.

I sense something "important" behind all this, I just can't concieve what
it is. Something having to do with all of electricity, gravity, and spin.
Makes me think there might be a simple gizmo or detector of some sort
possible. Wallace... "Hodowanec" derivative, something...

Something I just re-read on the Nipher experiments from 1916 & 1917 got my
attention where it hadn't before. In the Wallace experiments, the brass
flywheel has to be running for a while before the effects begin to appear,
presumably because it takes a while for the nuclii precess into a certain
percentage of alignment. And in Nipher's test, it took 20 minutes before
the test bob began to move over while inside the faraday cage in the
presence of an external charged HV electrode. The conclusion of leakage
charge slowly accumulating appears to be falsified by control runs using a
hollow low mass electrode instead of a solid lead ball. No test bob
movement resulted in the control runs with the hollow 'trodes. So there
seems to be this common thread where it takes a while to get things 'spun
up' or something. Mass seems to count as in Biefeld Brown claims, and...Joe
Newman saves the world with his gyroscopic particles! No! I don't know.

Apologies to the list for babbling. (still rubbing my knuckles)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 13:04:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA32754;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:03:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:03:51 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b2739fb4b9b6 [12.64.4.245]>
In-Reply-To: <199811141139_MC2-6031-1968 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:00:23 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"SdAUc3.0.U_7.s0VJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24573
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well said, Jed.

This list will fall apart if some things don't change.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 13:41:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11242;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:40:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:40:29 -0800
Message-Id: <199811142139.PAA03022 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 16:38:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"JuznG2.0.Wl2.DZVJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24574
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex; William Beaty >INTERNET:billb eskimo.com
>
>This disruptive invasion by aliens from outer space has gone on long enough.
>Something is seriously wrong here when people like Sevoir and Little quit or
>threaten to quit. I and many others have worked hard over the years to provide
>serious, carefully written content to this forum. It is one of the few places
>in the world where you can discuss late-breaking developments in cold fusion
>and other Peculiar Energy Science without being swamped by pathological
>skeptics on one side and perpetual motion machine fruitcakes on the other.
>This forum serves a handy and practical purpose. It allows me to communicate
>with hundreds of people without constantly shuffling e-mail addresses and
>re-sending messages. When I was working on the Mizuno book and again during
>preparations for the kinetic furnace testing, I received many valuable
>suggestions on this forum and via private e-mail. Many people were curious
>about the kinetic furnace tests; I am happy to oblige them by posting the
>numbers. They should not be forced to wade through page after page of
>off-topic, disruptive, politicized bullshit.

***{A few facts:

(1) SETI is not off topic here. Read the charter.

(2) What *is* off-topic is this seemingly endless whimpering, by you and a
few other censorious crybabies, because you find that the data are now
being analyzed from a perspective that you cannot cope with.

(3) Nobody is forced to wade through anything. Anyone can skip over and
delete, either manually or via automated filters, material which is not to
their liking. In fact, we all do that every day.

(4) The only disruption that is going on here is from you and the other
crybabies. Everything I have posted has been on topic and politely stated,
and will continue to be so.

(5) Incidentally, if any among your little claque are flirting with the
notion that, by merely putting up a cloud of stench, you can force me to
run and hide, think again. Bob Sullivan and the boys over at
sci.physics.fusion sent you all packing with your tails between your legs
by means of tactics such as you are using here, but they didn't work on me.
I stayed on until I got bored with their silliness, and I come back
whenever I please, and  I will do likewise here so long as Bill Beaty
permits me to do so. It is his call, not yours, because it is his list. If
he says go, then I'm gone. In the meantime, your stuck-pig squealing is a
source of amusement, nothing more.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>(The Mizuno book, by the way, is being printed and it should be shipped to us
>soon. Contact me if I promised you a fee copy.)
>
>An occasional flame-fest livens things up. Amusing and interesting off-topic
>postings are welcome. But Certain People have been abusing the rules and
>poisoning the atmosphere, and I am fed up with it. There are rules here,
>posted for all to see. Certain People have repeatedly broken every one, even
>the administrative rule about "Do not copy everything when quoting messages."
>
>I ask that Bill Beaty to issue a warning and ban the troublemakers if this
>continues. This step has never been necessary in the past, and I hope it is
>not needed now, but Extreme Measures may be called for.

***{Warning me is a waste of time, Jed. In the immortal words of Popeye: "I
yam what I yam." What you see is what you get. The simple fact is that I
don't care what you, or anyone, thinks. You either get my actual opinion,
free of charge, on any topic that falls within the group's charter, or you
get nothing at all. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>And let us not confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with free speech. As
>Horace Heffner eloquently put it: "Freedom of speech does not give one the
>right to speak out of order at a stockholders meeting or in a courtroom.  The
>maintenance of order, confining remarks to the topic at hand and speaking with
>civility and respect, is a cornerstone of our democracy." Amen!

***{If I may borrow a word that you used at the beginning of this post:
bullshit. Horace himself admitted, just a few days ago, that SETI falls
within the charter of the group. It was only when he discovered that such
an admission conflicted with his emotion-based desire to shut me up that he
reversed his stance. The fact is that these discussions have been perfectly
on topic, and you all know it. Moreover, it is also a fact that the source
of the disorder, incivility, and disrespect has been among your little
group of would-be censors. If you had all simply ignored the SETI
discussion, it could have coexisted quite peacibly with the other threads
in this group. Instead, you have chosen to shout your fool heads off, and
disrupt the group. --Mitchell Jones}***

A
>stockholder's meeting and a courtroom are good examples. More pertinent
>examples are the informal societies and clubs which are deeply rooted in
>Anglo-American traditions. Things like church group meetings, amateur science
>clubs & societies, book clubs, informal symposia, public libraries, the
>Chautauqua movement, various Chowder & Marching Societies, volunteer fire
>departments, and special interest groups devoted to fighting disease or
>illiteracy, and so on, and so forth. In 1831 de Tocqueville noted that
>Americans will form a society or a committee at the drop of a hat for just
>about any purpose, trivial or noble. I happen to be a member of the Joseph
>Heco Society which puts out a bilingual semiannual newsletter to commemorate
>and discuss the first Japanese-American citizen and the first professional
>Japanese / English translator. When she was 75 and could barely walk, my
>mother taught jail inmates how to read. This kind of volunteerism requires
>discipline and order.

***{Empty, irrelevant, off-topic blather. The fact  is that, as the charter
of this group is presently written, the SETI discussion is *on topic.*
Period. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Someone suggested we form "A New list, without Alien Photos." What will
>prevent troublemakers from disrupting that list? We will form another, and
>another, and what will stop them from breaking the rules every time and
>shutting us down? No, I think the answer is to enforce the rules we agreed to
>when we joined.

***{I repeat: as the rules of the group are presently constituted, the SETI
discussion is on topic. It is a few narrow minded members of the CF group
who are disrupting this list. The SETI thread could have coexisted peacibly
with the other threads in this group, if those who were narrowly and
intolerantly fixated on CF had simply ignored it. However, they were
unwilling to do so. Result: the full responsibility for the disruption
rests on them. --Mitchell Jones}***

This experiment in Internet communication has been working
>well for years. It has proved beneficial, interesting and amusing to many
>people. We should not allow a handful of people stop it, or vitiate it.

***{Hollow words, given the palpably obvious fact that you are a member of
the handful in question. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I do not want to install more and more filters either. That is not the answer.
>When people ask me where they can learn about cold fusion, I point them to our
>web page (which has pointers to many others, like Logajan and Swartz), and I
>suggest they join this group. What should I tell them in the future? "There is
>no place to talk about cold fusion because every time we start a group, a gang
>of disruptive jerks come in and drowns us out with arguments about [aliens /
>conspiracies / Monica Lewinsky / politics / secret sex files]."

***{If you want a group that is limited solely to the discussion of CF,
that's fine by me, and if I were a member of such a group, I would abide by
its charter. However, if you will examine the charter of the present group,
you will discover that discussions do *not* have to be focused on CF to be
on topic. Bottom line: you are out of line, disruptive, and in flagrant
breach of the charter of this group. The fact that you came here licking
your wounds, with your tail between your legs, looking for a place to hide
from those nasty fellows over at sci.physics.fusion does *not* entitle you
to invoke imaginary rules from your own private, unwritten charter,
whenever you encounter someone here whom you cannot easily defeat in
argument. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 14:05:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19534;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:03:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:03:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199811142201.RAA27438 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 16:54:39 -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: <"rzwi2.0.8n4.ruVJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24575
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Horace Heffner 
> 
> Could the difference between the NH and GA tests be in the lab geometry?
> The flow measurement is sensitive to ambient conditions.  In addition,
> there may be some form of heat feedback loop due to external air flow.  A
> vortex near the duct exhaust could heat the outside of the duct and
produce
> an increase in the downstream temperature reading, for example.  It would
> be nice to have pictures of the two setups, one that works and one that
> doesn't.
> 
We (Bow) have rearranged the setup several times with no noticeable result.
 It has run for many hours at a stretch, slowly heating the room up, and
run on hot days as well.  There does seem to be some small change in
performance, but nothing that seems beyond experimental error.


> 
> At 11:29 AM 11/13/98, Mike Carrell wrote:
> [snip]
> >You do this sort of thing is very small steps. As harmless as this
seems, it
> >may not be so. What needs to be done is to have a system that works
stably
> >and then characterize it, looking for internal phenomena such as sound
> >spectra that may be signatures of an operable configuration, as Ed
Storms
> >can evaluate Pd cathodes for promise in CF cells.

We *need* to take advantage of the only man who has experience making these
things work: Ralph Pope.  He is too tired and busy to learn how and then
undertake a full scientific investigation.  He has a good deal of intuition
of what sorts of things make them work after 18 years of tinkering with
them.  His knowledge is tacit, not explicit.  It is gained by osmosis.  I
have no reason to doubt it can be made explicit, unless this turns into a
Robert Jahn research project.

Horace: 
> It is very good advice to go one step at a time.  Also, once you have
what
> appears to be a working free energy device it is very important to leave
it
> alone and try to build a replica for experimentation.  In this case using
a
> replica is doubly important because the working device appears to be self
> destructive.  The rotor wear will eventually render it inoperable.  It
> seems like the most prudent approach would be to first attempt to get at
> least *two* setups working in GA. This then provides the freedom to
change
> one of them one step at a time and/or take it to another lab.  Additng
> additional instrumentation to prove the device really is over unity seems
> like the first logical step.
> 
Many replicas have been built and apparently many have worked, but no one
knows why.  Because we have the help of the man who seems to be able to get
them working, we have some liberty to vary parameters.  I spoke with Ralph
yesterday and he agrees that we should do full testing on the working unit
to establish baseline performance before changing anything.  He wants the
rotor that is running in our machine, which I will bring, to install it in
that one.  He says has a better nozzle angle.

Gathering and systematizing the data already gained is a good starting
point, even if flawed.

I plan to remove the rotor after I gather some more audio spectrographs.

> It would be very interesting to see if pumping the water from a barrel
and
> dumping the outflow back into the barrel for degassing/debubbling changes
> the performance.  It the device still works in that mode it is then clear
> adding a flowmeter and other devices in the water flow should have not
much
> effect.
> 
> >
> >Ed is making some small steps in this direction. At present there is
neither
> >staff nor funding necessary to mount the required R&D project to
understand
> >the KF.
> 
> The main problem is having good evidence that the device really is over
> unity.  Once you have that, the funding should be easily available. 
Scott
> Little has offered free instrumentaion and an independent verification of
> the functioning of the device.  If it really works then this is an offer
> that should be very welcome.  The price is certainly right!

Most certainly.  I intend to give Scott and Vortex the data as it is
collected and analyzed.  We must be very careful to avoid 'too many cooks'
at this time, particularly because Ralph is used to having control over the
situation.  He still does, but having a lot of people in his shop that he
barely knows can be disconcerting and he is likely the most valuable
resource on this project that is available.  For instance, when he traveled
to Bow, bringing a unit that was working at 1.8 COP in Cumming with it a
few days before then, and having it not work was hard for him to take. 
It's that much harder when something fails in front of lots of people. 
Also, fully independent testing produces better data.  If Scott and I work
together, one will take the lead, because he has more experience (now who
would that be?), and even though the other could produce a consistent set
of independent data, the opportunity would be diminished.

This is one of those 'pay attention and be patient' situations.  Stay
tuned.

Ed Wall
NERL
  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 14:12:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22671;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:09:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:09:23 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: PsyPhyList <psyphy listp.apa.org>, mind-l@onelist.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com,
        ChaoPsych <chaopsyc list.uvm.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:06:50 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7622.2506.18386096 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: For Computer Geeks, Only :)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"8kO4l2.0.8Y5.J-VJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24576
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Check out:

http://www.qnx.com

then download disk at:

http://www.qnx.com/iat/index.html

This thing is so hot that one can, by reloading the page, watch the 
download counter go up :) Was at 510900, when I left.

Why am I so pumped?

http://slashdot.org/articles/98/11/14/0025209.shtml 
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 14:42:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30880;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:41:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:41:08 -0800
Message-ID: <03f901be101f$608349c0$9cb4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: fldh (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps1996/fldh.gif)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:36:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE0FE4.8802D640"
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: <"g45ck.0.QY7.3SWJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24577
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_004C_01BE0FE4.8802D640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

1996 Field pH Map of US

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps1996/fldh.gif

------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE0FE4.8802D640
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="fldh.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="fldh.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps1996/fldh.gif
Modified=A02E05011F10BE01C2

------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE0FE4.8802D640--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 14:59:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03582;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:58:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:58:46 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 17:56:00 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811141758_MC2-603F-26B8 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y8sNo2.0.ot.biWJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24578
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>    Pressurized transport containers might make the difference.

We could test this hypothesis by leaving a gallon jug of water in the car
before testing it in Cumming. I do not drive much, but Pope does I think.
Maybe Terry can chauffeur some water around for a month?

- Jed <<

My 2 pennorth:

Pope reported that the ou effect fails to show below a certain temp.  Could
it be that by raising the water temp it effectively de-gasses it so
increasing the intensity of cavitation in the denser water?

It might be worth trying a pre-boiled sample of water which has been
allowed to cool down before running the 'heater' disc.

Another wild idea - how about evacuating the casing during the run - just
to remove as much entrained gas as possible?

Oh well, one day we might get to the bottom of this anomaly. <g>

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 17:55:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA19503;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 17:53:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 17:53:59 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:49:55 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811142053_MC2-6038-E5CC compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"RF_z83.0.fm4.tGZJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24579
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Mitchell Jones writes:

     (1) SETI is not off topic here. Read the charter.

The charter says:

The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of professional research into
fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie:
the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.)
Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold
Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free energy" devices, gravity generation
and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims.  Please see the
rules below.  This is a public, lightly-moderated listproc list.  Interested
parties are welcome to subscribe.

Elsewhere Jones writes:

     Everything I have posted has been on topic and politely stated, and will
     continue to be so.

And following that is his version of a "politely stated" argument:

     (5) Incidentally, if any among your little claque are flirting with the
     notion that, by merely putting up a cloud of stench . . . your stuck-pig
     squealing is a source of amusement, nothing more . . . 

I would hate to see him in an impolite mood. I myself do not disguise my tone,
confuse vituperation with reasoned argument, or pretend I am being reasonable
when I am not. Furthermore, despite my reputation, I seldom violate Rule 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 . . .

In a macho declaration Jones asserts we were "chased out of" s.p.f. "

     Bob Sullivan and the boys over at sci.physics.fusion sent you all
     packing with your tails between your legs by means of tactics such as
     you are using here, but they didn't work on me.

This is a misunderstanding, Mr. Jones. We are conducting a formal censure
here, not a campaign of intimidation. We are not trying to harass you,
ridicule you, "work on you," or drown you out with invective, the way Sullivan
et al. sometimes do. We are asking the chairman to throw you out, since you do
not wish to follow the rules. You are out of order. You have forced us to
choose between your presence, and the presence of Little, Sevior and others
who may leave if this disruption continues. I vote for them.

It is also incorrect to say that I was pushed out of s.p.f. I left because
Internet technology improved. I can now publish an organized presentation on
the World Wide Web, which any interested person can find. The only reason I
posted messages on s.p.f. was to educate the general public and to counter the
misinformation about cold fusion. I do not argue with fools for the sake of
arguing! Today I can educate the public more effectively at a lower cost with
far less effort by publishing a web page. I have no way of counting how many
people participate in s.p.f., but based on responses by private e-mail my
impression is that the web pages devoted to CF have attracted more readers and
more serious attention than the messages I and other advocates used to post on
Usenet. Usenet is obsolete, confusing and inefficient. Web pages are superior
in every respect.

Enough of this. I rest my case. Bill Beaty will decide when he gets around to
it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 18:32:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30304;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:30:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:30:47 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another Suncruiser Photo?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:30:42 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <36513b57.275899839 24.192.1.20>
References: <199811130937.DAA28948 mail11.jump.net>
In-Reply-To: <199811130937.DAA28948 mail11.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: <"BXv4W3.0.QP7.NpZJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24580
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:36:40 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>>The size and trajectory of this one are also highly anomalous:
>>http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/debris_gif/960827_c3.gif
>
>***{This clinches it! It's a vehicle moving under power. The reason: this
>track is narrow, indicating that the vehicle is farther away from SOHO than
>in the other shots. Result: it obscures a particular portion of the sky for
>a shorter period during the time exposure, and thus it merely dims out the
>background rather than obscuring it completely! What we are seeing here are
>tracks left on time exposure film by a vehicle moving about in the vicinity
>of SOHO, and moving under its own power! Somebody is examining SOHO, and it
>ain't us! Congratulations, John! You found the smoking gun! --Mitchell
>Jones}***
[snip]
How about a reflection off a polished corner on the end of the pylon,
just beyond the disk. Perhaps this reflection occasionally falls on
the camera lens. The actual shape and position would vary slightly
with the orientation of the satellite, however being the reflection
off a piece of angled metal, it would always be an angled reflection.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 18:52:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA04806;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:51:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:51:42 -0800
Message-ID: <364E42C9.18AB earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:56:09 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Rothwell: Jones:  This disruption must stop!  11.14.98
References: <199811142053_MC2-6038-E5CC compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XlHLD1.0.0B1.z6aJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24581
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 14, 1998   Hello, I agree with and support Jed Rothwell in his
request to Bill Beaty that Mitchell Jones be excluded, at least for a
month.  Jones' post is rude and abusive.  The alien topic is clearly not
within the Vortex-L charter, and should be therefore mentioned rarely,
say, once a month, to give those interested a lead to other resources. 
This is the way I offer off-topic posts, for instance, about the Y2K
crisis.   Thank you, Jed, for your incisive, fair, vehement, and lucid
statements.  Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 19:01:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA06704;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:55:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:55:35 -0800
Message-ID: <001001be1042$e9336ca0$93b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; Kinetic Furnace Tests
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:51:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"fpTX-2.0.We1.cAaJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24582
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Another thought:

It is not impossible that Northern Georgia well water contains Elemental
Iron,either from iron-nickel meteor dust or from H2S  in sufficient
quantities:

2FeO + H2S + H2O ---> FeHx + FeSO3 + H2 or some bacterial reduction or such.

At any rate, exposure of the water to atmospheric O2 is going to oxidize the
Fe to FeOx,knocking out the possibility for the favorable Kinetic
Dissociation Reaction:

Fe + H2O <--->  FeO + 2 H   or

FeO + D2O <---> FeO + 2 D

The best way around this and to overcome Acid Rain or Chlorinated water
problems is to add Iron Powder, and keep out the atmospheric O2.

Regards,  Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 19:11:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA12141;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:08:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:08:11 -0800
Message-ID: <364E46A4.5A4C earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:12:36 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact  11.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"khZru3.0.cz2.QMaJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24583
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.13.98
      Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:23:08 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:

> Subject:  Re: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.11.98
>   Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:53 -0400 (EDT)
>   From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Reply to Kirt Shanahan by Ed. Storms
> 
> I hope you don't mind my continued adherence to my pet theory for
> awhile. I know you have discounted it, because you feel your work has
> shown no gradients exist, but I am not as convinced yet.  In your reply
> you mention several items that contrast with my point of view, and I
> would like to try to address them and see if I can illustrate why I
> still have a bit of faith in my picture.

I don't mind at all.  You raise excellent points and this gives me a
chance to put some of the otherwise scattered information together in
one place.

Before I answer your concerns, let me first describe exactly how a
typical experiment is done.

A piece of platinum is placed in the cell as the cathode.  Current is
applied and the cell is allowed to reach temperature steady-state after
about 30 min. Current and voltage are measured, the temperatures at the
inlet and outlet of the jacket are measured and averaged, and the
temperatures at two levels within the electrolyte are measured and
averaged.  A plot is made of applied power vs delta T across the cell
wall.  Generally 12 points (six going up in T and six coming down) are
taken over the current range expected to be explored during the
palladium study.

Following this calibration, a second calibration is made using an
internal Joule heater.  This is done while a small electrolytic current
is applied.  This current is chosen to be below the critical current for
excess energy production while being high enough to keep the Pd from
deloading. It also provides convection to minimize temperature gradients
within the fluid. The result of this calibration falls on or very close
to the calibration line obtained using electrolysis alone. As you
suggest, this shows that power being produced at the recombiner does not
affect the behavior of the cell.  This calibration is not used as the
basis for judging excess power production, but is used to determine
whether any change has occurred in the calibration constant while excess
energy is being measured.  This calibration was done in the 1993 paper
to show that no change occurred before, during, or after excess power
production.
 
The platinum is removed and replaced by palladium.  Loading is
undertaken at low current until the sample is fully saturated. 
Composition and open-circuit-voltage are measured during this time. 
Once the cell has chemically stabilized, the current is increased in
steps as was done during the calibration using Pt.  All measurements are
made exactly as was done during calibration.  If everything is ok, which
is generally the case, the excess heat is zero, meaning that the Pt and
the Pd are described by the same power vs delta T line.  An arbitrary
current is applied, generally between 0.5 and 1 A, and usually once a
day the current is stepped up to the calibration limit.  After some time
and with some luck, an indication of excess power is seen when higher
currents are applied and the amount increases with time.

You suggest that this apparent excess is caused by recombination moving
from the internal recombiner, located in the gas space, to the
electrodes located within the liquid.  The consequence of this change in
location for energy release is to increase the temperature of the
liquid, thereby appearing to give excess power.

Several problems exist with this explanation:

1. You have to assume that the electrodes become increasingly catalytic
as time goes on. Several people, Mel. Miles in particular, have studied
this process and found that it does not occur.  In addition, I remove
samples from the calorimeter to obtain their weight. It is very rare for
the released deuterium to be catalytically combined with oxygen from the
air.  When this very rare event happens, the sample self-heats and the
effect is clearly visible. If the action is weak, the weight change
becomes erratic. I see no indication that catalytic activity is present
after excess energy is made.  In addition, for a significant fraction of
the D2 and O2 to be recombined on the electrode surface, a significant
fraction of the bubbles would have to be transported to the opposite
electrode.  At high current, this does not happen as can be seen by
looking into the glass cell.  The convention currents transport most of
the gas directly to the surface. 

2. You have to assume that the temperature difference between the gas
and the fluid is large, and that a change in this difference will
produce a change in the calibration constant.  First of all, as I
mentioned previously, a measurement of the gas temperature shows no
important difference in temperature, i.e. less than 0.5�. This means
that good thermal contact is achieved between the gas phase and the
liquid.  The temperature of the recombiner does not matter, because it
is not in contact with the thermal barrier except through the gas phase.
Second, a change in this temperature does not cause a similar change in
the temperature of the fluid because of the relative areas of the wall
seen by the gas and fluid. The area seen by the fluid is about three
times the area seen by the gas. Granted, the amount of heat leaving
through the top will change.  However, the top is a much better
insulator than is the Pyrex cell wall.  Therefore, the fraction of
energy going through the top is small, compared with that entering the
surrounding water, hence the effect of the change will be
correspondingly small.  Finally, the use of a Joule heater gives
practically the same calibration constant, provided the cell is stirred.
Experimental evidence for these assertions are scattered in various
publications.  If required, I can pull out some examples from my
experience.  I have not taken the trouble to publish these studies
because the possible error appears to be so unimportant.  I have since
gone to a flow calorimeter which side-steps all of these issues.

3. You have to assume that the effect is somehow related to the
composition of the Pd and not to time.  Some samples can be electrolyzed
for weeks without showing excess energy while not reaching the critical
composition.  Other samples will reach this composition relatively
quickly and produce excess power.  Perhaps this is coincidence, but
perhaps not.  Other calorimeter types do not suffer from your suggested
possibility and yet produce excess energy having a similar relationship
to composition. Perhaps this is coincidence as well. At what point does
a common cause look attractive?
 
> In the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of your response, you mentioned that
> (numbering is for later reference):
> (1)- recombination heat is 1.54*amps
> (2)- D2 quickly moves heat to the cell wall
> (3)- flow and isoperibol calorimeters don't suffer from gradient effects
> (4)- bubble mixing removes gradients
> (5)- %recombination at the electrode decreases with increasing current
> 
> Since no references were specifically stated, I went back to your 1993
> Fusion Tech. paper (vol23, p. 232) as a starting point. (Are there any
> other papers I should explicitly look at?)
  
 Check out -A Study of Those Properties of Palladium that Influence
Excess Energy Production by the Pons-Fleischmann Effect-, E., K. Storms,
Infinite Energy 2, #8 (1996) 50.

>You use a wide range of currents, but the largest is 2.8 A, which by your equation (1) implies
> 4.31 W theoretically being deposited at the recombiner.  That puts an
> upper limit on my "X". (Recall my model gives: Excess heat = Input heat
> * transferred heat * kc*(k2-k1) )
> 
> Regarding (2), that is a manifestation of thermal conductivities .  My
> read of Handbook data suggests that the conductivity of D2 is the lowest
> of the main components of the cell excepting the Teflon (Pyrex, water,
> D2 gas, Pt metal sheet, Teflon).  Increasing the technical depth of the
> discussion may be worthwhile, but I don't feel point (2) is relevant to
> my primary model. The non-homogeniety I postulate would have to develop
> in light of the thermal conductivities.  To invalidate my postulate from
> this point of view requires detailed heat transfer calculations, which
> would have a raft of debatable assumptions in it.  I would prefer direct
> experimental results with a calibration resistor as I suggested.  (But
> perhaps I am overestimating the difficulties of 'theoretically'
> rejecting my scenario?)

There is no need for calculations, a simple measurement will do the job
as described above.  

> I note that your cell design does not have heat capture surface across
> any of the cell top, and you have several penetrations through this
> region for the usual connections and supports. Thus, my concern about
> the gas space region having a potentially different heat capture
> efficiency has physical grounds.  This seems to contradict your point
> (3), and I suspect a bit of a semantics problem here.  The problem was
> most likely promoted by my mention of bubbles in my first post, so let
> me remind you that that was added as a possibly trivial second effect.
> You comment and the work you did in the paper both point out that
> bubble gradients seem to be trivial when probed by temperature
> distribution in the electrolyte (which means I will tentatively agree
> with (4) in the context of what work was done).

Yes, important heat is lost through the top.  You are taking about a
second order effect produced by small changes in the gas temperature.
This effect is small compared to the original, steady heat loss which is
corrected for by the calibration.

> However, that does not impact at all my main point of non-homogeneous
> heat source distribution and differing heat capture efficiencies in
> different parts of the calorimeter.  This is a concern that can affect
> any calorimeter I believe. 

No, at least three kinds, flow, Seebeck and double-wall isoperibolic ,
are insensitive where the energy source is located.

> In fact, I don't believe your '93 paper
> drectly addreses this issue at all.  The fact that you added the Pt
> sheet in contact with the recombiner indicates you acknowledge the
> recombiner is a localized heat source. You found that removal of the
> sheet did not alter the results, and you concluded that that
> meant you had the recombiner heat fully distributed.
> 
> But I think there are possible alternative interpretaions of your
> results. The first is the trivial one, namely, removing the Pt sheet had
> no effect, so it was actually doing nothing!  This could easily occur if
> thermal conductivity from the recombiner bed to the sheet was poor.  It
> seems to me from your sketch that the recombiner was supported
> separately.  How was the contact between the recombiner and the Pt sheet
> made and maintained?  Can you comment on the contact geometry from the
> extent of thermal contact point of view?

The recombiner cloth was placed between two Pt sheets, which were
crimped together where they entered the fluid. Many other configurations
were used in an effort to achieve reliable recombination.  Initially, I
was as concerned as you are with local heating.  However, after
considerable experience, I found that this was not an important issue. 
Later work in my lab in Santa Fe showed the reason.  The gas is
essentially at the same temperature as the liquid.

> The second interpretation is more interesting.  It caused me to realize
> I had some conceptual blinders on when I originally formulated my
> scenario.  As you pointed out in your paper, the average calibration
> equation is:
>              [DP =]  developed power (W) = .36 + (3.7 +.015Tj)delT
> 
> You say Tj is nominally 20C, and based on a delT of 12C as per your Fig.
> 5, I calculate DP = 48.4W. (Trivial note: there seenms to be a typo in
> the Fig. 14 caption w.r.t. this number.)  Further, the recombination
> heat is 4.3W, and the thermal conductivity of the Pt is approximately
> 50X that of the other materials I listed above.  So, I conclude that the
> primary direction of heat transfer could well be from the _liquid_ to
> the _gas_.  Thus "X" in my equation would have to be negative, and we
> would see a 'negative' excess heat signal!
> 
> Does this actually occur in your work?  

No.

>Probably not, because removing
> the sheet had no effect.  However, and this is a key realization, we now
> also need to consider the case where the base condition ("X"=0) is
> established from a physical reality that includes a heat source in the
> liquid that could be relocated to the gas by some physical means during
> the run.  One obvious specific candidate for this is recombination that
> is occuring at one or both of the electrodes, but that is not the only
> way a liquid-to-gas transfer scenario could be constructed.
> 
> Can we find any evidence of this occurring in your data?  Perhaps. Let's
> consider your Figure 11.  When I look at the data for selected currents,
> I can visually take an 'average' (note that this is just a
> 'back-of-the-envelope' approach).  What I then get is the following
> numbers:
> 
> Current(A):                   .13     .5    2.0    2.5    2.8
> "Avg." Excess Power (W):      -.15    -.4   -.1    +.6   +1.0
> 
> Thus, to me there seems to be a dip in the excess power, which reaches a
> negative minimum value near 1A, and a subsequent increase with
> increasing current beyond that.

The problem here is that the excess is changing both relatice to applied
power and time.  Therefore, the averages mean nothing.
 
> (I wonder if Figure 5 could be transformed to one similar to the one
> Mike McKubre has in his EPRI report that seems to show a quadratic
> increase in excess power with increasing loading (this is the plot shown
> on John Logajan's Web page also).  The noise characteristics seem
> similar.)

Figure 5 shows the calibration result. In any case, I could not measure
the composition during the study with sufficient precision to compare my
work to Mike's in this respect.

> I can suggest that what might be occuring is my postulated shift in heat
> localization, and I might go further and implicate the extent of mixing.
> At the higher currents the greater bubble flow should present more
> electrolysis gases to the electrodes (generically, submersed
> recombination sites), so recombination can easily be envisioned to be
> more favored in the liquid in that situation.  

No, the opposite effect is actually seen. Lower currents cause an
increased fraction of the gas to be recombined on the electrode
surfaces.  Such currents are well below those required to produce excess
power.

> Your point (5) is
> probably correct, but my proviso to that is that at higher
> currents you are producing more heat at the recombiner, thereby allowing
> a smaller relative percentage change in heat distribution to produce an
> apparently large excess heat.

Now I'm confused.  Do you mean this?

> Why the negative dip occurs, I am not sure.  

Note above.  Two variables are operating.

>My scenario suggests that
> some heat source has moved from the liquid to the gas, but I admit
> difficulty in visualizing how this occurs.  Generically I could say
> 'mixing' I suppose. Was Figure 5 obtained with or without the Pt sheet
> present?  Another possibilty might be the effectiveness of the
> magnetically driven stir bar.  My experience suggests these things are
> highly unreliable if overdriven or perturbed. They have a tendency to
> jump up and fly around the vessel they are in.  Did you ever observe
> this hapening?  What rpm are you stirring at, and does it vary?

The rpm was constant, but at that time I had no way of knowing the rate. 
Later work was done as a function of stirring rate, from which I was
able to quantify the effect of convection.

> It is interesting to note that this effect does not occur in the data
> presented in Figure 7, which uses a Pt electrode instead of the Pd one.
> Also your text comments on the fact that some Pd also behaves this way.
> To me this implies that you are actually measuring a real effect.  My
> scenario is focused on the concept that the interpretation you make of
> the data neglects a possible controlling factor.  Technically speaking,
> this causes your numerical scale to be off a bit, with the 'excess' heat
> signal actually being the one that most closely approaches unity
> perfprmance.
> 
> In the cases of no observed effect, the implication is that there was no
> relocation of localized heat sources.  This could be because it was
> simply not possible, "it" possibly being recombination at the electrode.
> And, I am now back to my underlying idea of a surface reaction mediated
> by finite lifetime surface sites.  The absence of these sites in the
> 'dead' electrodes would explain their behavior.

Or may not.
 
> I'm sure you have an explanation and comments on this, and I look
> forward to reading them.
> 
> ----------------------------
> In the 3rd paragraph of your response, you state that the thermal
> localization I invoke doesn't occur because:
> 
> (6)- you have placed thermistors in the gas space and seen nothing like
> I propose
> (7)- you have studied the mixing problem.
> 
> I would respond to (6) by saying that that may not be adequate.  If the
> primary loss mechanism contributing to the different heat capture
> efficiencies is conduction through penetrations, wouldn't the cell still
> achieve steady-state, leading to very similar temperatures in the cell?
> Could you point me to the report where you discuss your gas phase
> measurements?  (On an amusing level, I will reflect a comment I hear a
> lot.  Not observing an effect doesn't prove it's not there.)

You need to separate the steady-state effect from your proposed effect.
Heat is constantly lost through the penetrators, but it is the change in
this amount that you are talking about.  This change can only occur if
the temperature of the gas and liquid change. The gas can only change by
a few tenths of a degree.  This change can not produce a significant
change in the amount of heat leaving through the top, an amount which is
only a fraction of the heat leaving the cell through the wall.  

> Re. (7), those studies I agree with, but they seem irrelevant to
> addressing the issue of differing capture efficiencies, since they were
> all focused in the liquid.
> 
> Re. the discussion of a stagnant layer at the walls, it seems irrelevant
> to the efficiency issue as well.  (Which is NOT to say is is
> unimportant.  It establishes a cell design and operation criterion.)

Past objections were based on gradients in the liquid. I showed why this
was not important.  You raise the issue of gradients between the gas and
liquid.  I have tried to address this issue above.  All of my experience
tells me that this effect is even less important than the liquid
gradient. The issue is not whether a process might introduce an error of
perhaps 10 mW, which might be produced by such gradients, the issue is
whether such processes can introduce an error of several watts.  We have
to keep the magnitues in mind.  We are not working with supersensitive
calorimeters.  Therefore, many of the small effects which occupy other
calorimeterists are not important.

> ---------------------------
> In the 4th paragaph of your response, you mention the Pt sheet, which I
> have addressed above.  You also mention the Pyrex tube you use now.
> Pyrex's conductivity is much poorer than Pt, so you might expect to see
> a slightly different behavior of course, but I can't say for sure what
> to expect in detail, as the issue of the effect of the Pt sheet is not
> resolved in my mind.  The idea of water droplets carrying heat from the
> recombiner back to the liquid is just part of the overall steady-state
> condition.  Alter it to effect an effective heat balance shift from the
> nominal base case and you will get the problem I propose in my primary
> scenario.

Think of magnitudes.  I have the recombiner contained in Pyrex, a poor
conductor; therefore the recombiner is hotter than the gas; therefore
most of the heat energy is moving with the hot water into the liquid;
therefore the heat energy produced at the recombiner does not
significantly influence the gas temperature; therefore a change in
recombiner temperature caused by a shift in recombination location would
have only a small effect on the gas temperature, therefore the rate of
heat loss through the top is essentially unchanged and the calibration
remains unchanged. You are describing second and third order effects
even if they should occur, which they don't.  

> Again, my localized heat source proposal is a simple, linear one.  Most
> of the issues we are dicussing in this note are complications to the
> ideal version.  This is entirely what should be expected, and in fact
> the introduction of non-linear factors should be expected as well
> whenever one moves from an idealized view to a 'reality-driven' view.
> 
> ---------------------------
> In your 5th paragraph, I think you move to more philosophical points,
> and I don't have any major problems with what you say.  I do reserve the
> right to disagree at a later time if needed.
> 
> ---------------------------
> To quantify the situation, let's talk about your 50W input case with
> 4.3W of recombination heat, and let's  maximize the 'transfer effect' by
> assuming "X" =4.3.  If the calorimeter collects 90% of the total heat,
> my definition of kc means kc = 1.1 (=1/.9).  My model gives
> 
>     Excess Heat (W) = 4.3* 1.1 *(k2-k1) = 4.7*(k2-k1) (W)
> 
> Recalling that k2 and k1 range from 0 to 1 in theory, clearly then the
> difference in capture efficiencies drives the size of the signal.  If
> the cell has very equivalent heat captures in the two regions, the
> excess heat from the 'transfer' of heat will be, in the limit of
> perfection, 0.  If the gas phase region collects 10% less, we have an
> excess heat signal of .47W or 470 mW.
> 
> Your results show up to 2.4W maximally.  So...is it that kc*(k2-k1) = .5
> or do we have CANR?

Such calculations have no meaning, if the proposed process does not
occur.
> 
> I hope I have shown you some of why I am not ready to abandon my
> scenario and my concerns.  The second calibration resistor I proposed
> would seem to me to be the best way to address the issue.  It provides
> another penetration through the cell that would provide a heat
> conduction path for losses, and it would be a primary localized heat
> source.  I realize noone has done this experiment yet, but I
> still feel much could be learned from doing it.

As noted above, a Joule heater was placed in the fluid.  While this does
not exactly duplicate your suggestion, it gives a similar insight. The
cell constant does not depend significantly on where energy is produced,
provided the cell is stirred mechanically or by bubble formation.
Eventually, I will have time to include this work in a paper but now you
will just have to take my word.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 19:14:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA14071;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:13:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:13:33 -0800
Message-ID: <364E48BE.AD7F1F31 fc.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:21:35 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields fc.net>
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <l03130301b2739fb4b9b6 [12.64.4.245]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Lxs93.0.jR3.TRaJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24584
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Well said, Jed.
>
> This list will fall apart if some things don't change.

--

I've been lurking on this list for about a year, I guess, and
haven't really contributed much except to play devil's advocate
against the Newman camp.

It seems to me that if any of the current members are unhappy with
the way that Bill is running the (his) list, they should start their
own list(s) instead of taking the easy way out by bitching about how
the content of this list is not to their liking and that the only
posts allowed should be those posts which they consider to be
worthwhile reading and blah, blah, blah.

Not that I'm an arbiter of anything, but if I see a post by
(say)Scott and I'm interested in calorimetry, I'll spend a little
time reading what he has to say and evaluating it from my point of
view.  If i'm not and I've read a few of his previous posts, guess
what? I'm going to go on to something else without even opening up
his mail.

My particular bent is trying to determine whether we're currently
experiencing the big crunch without knowing about it, since the red
shift we see happenened so long ago that we can't yet see the later
blue shift.

There does, however, seem to be a gathering place; the great
attractor.

Be that as it may, where else but here can we explore each other's
thoughts, theories and foibles with or without rancor?

--
John Fields

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 20:07:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA27592;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:06:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:06:04 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27400261e11 [12.21.208.38]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:12:41 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"aLFQ62.0.2l6.iCbJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24585
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 9:21 PM 11/14/98, John Fields wrote:
[snip]
>Be that as it may, where else but here can we explore each other's
>thoughts, theories and foibles with or without rancor?
>
>--
>John Fields

One answer to that question is vortex-b.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 14 23:52:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA16827;
	Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:52:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:52:02 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981115075913.00eaed10 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: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:59:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"JFJNh1.0.r64.XWeJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24586
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex;

Lord Kelvin's falling water experiment is used to test a water sample's
charge. Viktor Schauberger's research has alot to say about this.

No response on CF thermoelectric converters I notice. I guess no one has
tried to use CF excess heat?


Regards;
Dennis


At 01:26 PM 11/14/98 -0500, you wrote:

>We could test this hypothesis by leaving a gallon jug of water in the car
>before testing it in Cumming. I do not drive much, but Pope does I think.
>Maybe Terry can chauffeur some water around for a month?




Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 01:37:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29482;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:36:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:36:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199811150935.DAA07485 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:34:23 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"JcCFj3.0.aC7.C2gJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24587
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>Mitchell Jones writes:
>
>     (1) SETI is not off topic here. Read the charter.
>
>The charter says:
>
>The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of professional research into
>fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie:
>the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.)
>Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold
>Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free energy" devices, gravity generation
>and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims.

***{As I said, and as the above quotes flatly prove, SETI--that is, the
specific SETI related topic that we have been discussing--is not off topic
here. The point is utterly unarguable, and for you to post this here,
thereby demolishing your own position, and then continue on as if you have
proven your point, is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this
group. But why not? After all, you began your last post by referring to my
recent posts as "off-topic, disruptive, politicized bullshit." Having
thereby tossed fecal material in my direction, you might as well shower it
on the entire group. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Please see the
>rules below.  This is a public, lightly-moderated listproc list.  Interested
>parties are welcome to subscribe.
>
>Elsewhere Jones writes:
>
>     Everything I have posted has been on topic and politely stated, and will
>     continue to be so.
>
>And following that is his version of a "politely stated" argument:
>
>     (5) Incidentally, if any among your little claque are flirting with the
>     notion that, by merely putting up a cloud of stench . . . your stuck-pig
>     squealing is a source of amusement, nothing more . . .
>
>I would hate to see him in an impolite mood.

***{Good manners do not preclude the option of returning fire, me-boy-o,
especially when doing so involves the statement of relevant truths. You do
recall the beginning of your last post, do you not? Here, let me play it
back to you one more time: you referred to my recent posts as "off-topic,
disruptive, politicized bullshit." Do those words sound familiar? Given
those words and the tone of your post, you deserved what you got and more.
If you think good manners imply that you get to fire away and I have to
stand and take it, think again. All I will guarantee is that if you jump
into the gutter, I'll not join you. (I never interfere with a man who is
bent on making a fool out of himself.) --Mitchell Jones}***

I myself do not disguise my tone,
>confuse vituperation with reasoned argument, or pretend I am being reasonable
>when I am not.

***{And you absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt are *not* doing each of
those things right now, right? :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

Furthermore, despite my reputation, I seldom violate Rule 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 . . .

***{Yup. But, of course nothing in the above is to be taken to preclude
referring to another person's posts as "off-topic, disruptive, politicized
bullshit." This is yet another proviso taken from your private, personal,
unwritten copy of the group's charter, right? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>In a macho declaration Jones asserts we were "chased out of" s.p.f. "
>
>     Bob Sullivan and the boys over at sci.physics.fusion sent you all
>     packing with your tails between your legs by means of tactics such as
>     you are using here, but they didn't work on me.
>
>This is a misunderstanding, Mr. Jones.

***{No it isn't. Every person in this group who sees with his own eyes and
thinks with his own brain can see what you are doing. What  we have here is
a quintessential choice between good and evil, stated in the starkest of
possible terms. Some members of the group will engage in selective thinking
in order to reach the conclusion they want to believe. Others will look at
the full range of relevant facts and find their way to the truth. There is
nothing I can say to influence members of the former group, and there is
nothing you can say to influence members of the latter one. All we can do
is wait, myself with amusement and you with trepidation, until we find out
how our little morality play is going to turn out. --Mitchell Jones}***

We are conducting a formal censure
>here, not a campaign of intimidation.

***{Yesterday it was a campaign of intimidation. However, that didn't work,
so now you escalate. But what you are doing today does not change what you
were doing yesterday. --MJ}***

We are not trying to harass you,
>ridicule you, "work on you," or drown you out with invective, the way Sullivan
>et al. sometimes do.

***{Not today,  but that doesn't alter what you were doing yesterday. --MJ}***

We are asking the chairman to throw you out, since you do
>not wish to follow the rules.

***{No, you are asking Bill Beaty to throw me out because you have made a
fool of yourself, and you want him to rescue you from your self-inflicted
discomfiture. The question is, will he do it or won't he? The suspense is
simply terrible, isn't it Jed? :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

You are out of order.

***{Nope. The only question at issue here is whether you can deceive or
intimidate Bill Beaty. If you can, then you will feel a moment of relief
when the decision is handed down, but the price of your "victory" will be a
hollow ache in your soul that you will carry to the end of your days. As
for me, well, the last I heard there were more than 30,000 groups on
usenet. If I leave this one, I will do so with a clear conscience and a
happy grin. --Mitchell Jones}***

  You have forced us to
>choose

***{Rubbish. As previously noted, the SETI thread could have coexisted
peacibly with the other threads in this group, if not for the hysterical
caterwauling by you and a few others. It is thus you, not I, who is
demanding that a choice be made here. --Mitchell Jones}***

between your presence, and the presence of Little, Sevior and others
>who may leave if this disruption continues. I vote for them.

***{If they are unwilling to coexist with me, and if you are unwilling to
coexist with me, then don't you think you should at least have the honesty
to come right out and say so? Why do you insist that I am forcing a choice,
when the obvious fact of the matter is that the choice is being forced by
you? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>It is also incorrect to say that I was pushed out of s.p.f. I left because
>Internet technology improved. I can now publish an organized presentation on
>the World Wide Web, which any interested person can find. The only reason I
>posted messages on s.p.f. was to educate the general public and to counter the
>misinformation about cold fusion. I do not argue with fools for the sake of
>arguing! Today I can educate the public more effectively at a lower cost with
>far less effort by publishing a web page. I have no way of counting how many
>people participate in s.p.f., but based on responses by private e-mail my
>impression is that the web pages devoted to CF have attracted more readers and
>more serious attention than the messages I and other advocates used to post on
>Usenet. Usenet is obsolete, confusing and inefficient. Web pages are superior
>in every respect.

***{Yup. Especially in respect to the fact that you don't have to face your
opponents on the field of battle. :-) --MJ}***

>
>Enough of this. I rest my case. Bill Beaty will decide when he gets around to
>it.
>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 02:24:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA03518;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:23:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:23:58 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981115101633.2d776164 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 <jcollins free-energy.co.uk>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:26:28 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tw1G13.0.qs.-kgJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24588
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frankly, I agree with Jed, even though I felt a flush of guilty
embarrassment when he referred to "Perpetual Motion" crackpots!  I may be
obsessed but I'm not a crackpot (I may be, of course,and not know it, in
which case I'm blissfully ignorant).  In my opinion Mitchell Jones goes on
far too long about things.  Once he he gets the bit between his teeth
there's no stopping him and he will argue over the length of a gnat's
whisker, and not see the fly-swat coming.  

John (mixed metaphors) 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  Sun Nov 15 03:05:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08929;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 03:04:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 03:04:54 -0800
Message-Id: <364EB55F.94FBF7ED verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:05:04 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Large Two Dimensional Sonic Band Gaps
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tzy411.0.RB2.LLhJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24589
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A news comes from PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE.

"Taking inspiration from such photonic crystals,
and from a beautiful outdoor sculpture in Madrid, Francisco
Meseguer of the Institute of Material Science in Madrid
(fmese fis.upv.es) has designed a metallic structure that produces 
bandgaps in the audible frequency range for sound waves entering
the material from all directions.  Described at the recent Acoustical
Society of America meeting in Norfolk, this "sound sculpture"
consists of one-meter-long metal bars arranged in a hybrid
honeycomb-triangular pattern.(See www.acoustics.org/meseg2.htm;
also see Sanchez-Perez et al., Physical Review Letters, 15 June;
Physical Review Focus, 15 June)"

See the sculpture at www.acoustics.org/meseg2.htm Isn't it a kind of B. Beaty's drinking pipes array placed in a bowl setup. Mainstream science rediscovered what is known at its weird version from the long way. :)

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 04:36:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA21768;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:34:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:34:41 -0800
Message-ID: <001201be1093$fd1066a0$cb48ccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:31:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"mf9rj3.0.2K5.XfiJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24590
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dennis Lee said:

<snip>
>No response on CF thermoelectric converters I notice. I guess no one has
>tried to use CF excess heat?


In most cases, efforts are absorbed in just getting robust excess heat from
CF experiments. CETI has seen hundreds of watts for extended periods, but
apparently is unable to  produce enough such units to form the basis of a
business application for, say, water heating.

At the 11 Oct meeting in Manchester, Ed Storms pointed out what has become
crashingly obvious, that there is a fundamental materials problem in the CF
experiments. We rely on active sites in Pd and related metals, and no one
has a theory that defines an active site so one can manufacture same.

There is a very efficient thermoelectric converter strategy discussed by
Harold Aspden in one of his papers, which has shown remarkable performance.
Its construction is unusual, and there are no plans I am aware of to
manufacture it. So far the temperatures produced by CF reactions haven't
reliably reached the range where coupling to existing generating systems is
interesting.

If anyone has a better perspective, I will gladly stand corrected.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 05:19:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28089;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 05:18:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 05:18:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981115082029.007efcf0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:20:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <001201be1093$fd1066a0$cb48ccd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ODK8N1.0.ps6.OIjJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24591
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 07:31 AM 11/15/98 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote:
>Dennis Lee said:
><snip>
>>No response on CF thermoelectric converters I notice. I guess no one has
>>tried to use CF excess heat?
>
>In most cases, efforts are absorbed in just getting robust excess heat from
>CF experiments. CETI has seen hundreds of watts for extended periods, but
>apparently is unable to  produce enough such units to form the basis of a
>business application for, say, water heating.


   It was posted previously that we [JET Energy Technology] have generated
electrical output from cf systems, including by the use of 
thermoelectric conversion.  We have lit light bulbs by this technique
for several years now.  This was discussed in the vortex archives, 
and was published in Fusion Facts and elsewhere - years ago.  
The efficiency of conversion is fair to poor and, more importantly,
there are other issues and more serious problems which were specifically 
previously discussed repeatedly in posts here, and elsewhere; and
about which we continue to "R&D" to avoid.


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

>At the 11 Oct meeting in Manchester, Ed Storms pointed out what has become
>crashingly obvious, that there is a fundamental materials problem in the CF
>experiments. We rely on active sites in Pd and related metals, and no one
>has a theory that defines an active site so one can manufacture same.


  Furthermore, despite Mike Carrell's good points, 
active sites are NOT the only issue/problem.
It was also posted here how to avoid some of the
problems with Pd and Ni systems which can prevent and/or
obscure these reactions; and refs. to BOTH theories and experimental
data were given.  It remains unfortunate that there has not been 
any serious interest apparently except for several serious 
professionals with whom I continue to confer off-vortex. 
It is tiresome to repeat information which is ignored (unlike
off-vortex discussions) because there is so much more serious work to do.

  Also I am more than a little dismayed watching 
the hypocritical attacks from some who themselves post nonsense 
(ie. off-topic) posts who now are attacking others who post 
nonsense posts that would have surely ended their threads by now. 

  Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
info to vortex since most seem interested anyway.  Given these
trends, I may soon unsubscribe as well since on the net 
(both spf and vortex) the bad science continues to push out most 
of the good science [akin to Gresham's law?].  

  More power to those (both cf workers and skeptics) who use 
science and diligent reading and valid criticism to move 
this important field ahead.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 05:24:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA30206;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 05:24:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 05:24:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981115082614.007f6a40 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:26:14 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981115082029.007efcf0 world.std.com>
References: <001201be1093$fd1066a0$cb48ccd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"gLZZ22.0.qN7.mNjJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24592
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  At 08:20 AM 11/15/98 -0500, I mistyped:
>  Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
>info to vortex since most seem interested anyway. 

 That obviously was an error (mea culpa) and should have read:
  "Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
  info to vortex since most seem uninterested anyway." 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 06:48:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA18717;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:47:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:47:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981115084754.00994210 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:47:54 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
In-Reply-To: <199811150935.DAA07485 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"E_Vr8.0.Na4.OckJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24593
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:34 AM 11/15/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{If they are unwilling to coexist with me, and if you are unwilling to
>coexist with me, then don't you think you should at least have the honesty
>to come right out and say so?

It's not a matter of honesty...I just didn't realize it was hopeless until
now.  I am unwilling to be on the same list with you, Mitchell Jones....as
you are presently behaving, that is.


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 Nov 15 06:57:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20773;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:56:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:56:10 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981115150318.00e83028 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: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:03:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"cHBAX2.0.O45.AkkJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24594
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 08:20 AM 11/15/98 -0500, you wrote:

>   It was posted previously that we [JET Energy Technology] have generated
>electrical output from cf systems, including by the use of 
>thermoelectric conversion.  We have lit light bulbs by this technique
>for several years now.  This was discussed in the vortex archives, 
>and was published in Fusion Facts and elsewhere - years ago.  
>The efficiency of conversion is fair to poor and

Has anyone tried a Sterling engine?

, more importantly,
>there are other issues and more serious problems which were specifically 
>previously discussed repeatedly in posts here, and elsewhere; and
>about which we continue to "R&D" to avoid.

Such as what? Erosion of materials exposed to the CF reaction fluids? Are
byproducts of CF toxic?

>  Furthermore, despite Mike Carrell's good points, 
>active sites are NOT the only issue/problem.
>It was also posted here how to avoid some of the
>problems with Pd and Ni systems which can prevent and/or
>obscure these reactions; and refs. to BOTH theories and experimental
>data were given.  It remains unfortunate that there has not been 
>any serious interest apparently except for several serious 
>professionals with whom I continue to confer off-vortex. 
>It is tiresome to repeat information which is ignored (unlike
>off-vortex discussions) because there is so much more serious work to do.

It's sometimes difficult to find one's starting point to interconnect a new
technology. I have not noticed a response to my suggstion of David Hudson's
monatomic superconducting phase collapse transmutation from critical
magnetic field over saturation as a source of unexpected elements and
nuclear particles. Nor have I noticed a response about the idea of the
hydrogen dissociation - recombination cycle as a excess energy source. I
have not seen any technical discussion about CF experiments which refutes or
contradicts these theories in any way, as of yet.

>  Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
>info to vortex since most seem interested anyway.  Given these
>trends, I may soon unsubscribe as well since on the net 
>(both spf and vortex) the bad science continues to push out most 
>of the good science [akin to Gresham's law?].  

Most of what I remember of past posts deals with calorimetry techniques and
fine tuning. A well thought experiment might be of a efficiency level where
such exacting calorimetry methods are not critical to observing excess
energy. If the theories I propose turn out to be basic CF processes, will it
take years for these new discoveries to become mainstream before the
established CF researchers take note? I want to thank you (and Mike Carrell)
for answering my question of thermoelectric conversion. Information provided
when a question is asked will be noticed (by me at least anyways).

>  More power to those (both cf workers and skeptics) who use 
>science and diligent reading and valid criticism to move 
>this important field ahead.

I have more suggestions and an idea for a system, but my interest in things
not yet mainstream appears to negate what I have to say. In addition, a
certain most respected professor seems to have a technological solution for
energy systems which is highly compatible with requirements of our
environment. CF will address the CO2 problem but heat is still generated.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 07:15:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24827;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:14:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:14:30 -0800
Message-ID: <364EF02E.F2B skylink.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:15:58 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Chiral Vacuum
References: <3.0.32.19981114130958.00b8be50 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"m5DTp2.0.r36.L_kJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24595
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> The subject of chirality in the universe touches on many subjects.
> Why, for example, do all living things use the right hand (L)
> version of organic molecules?
> 
> On the other hand, astrophysical analysis reveals the existance
> of the "Great Attractor", an area around the southern cross where
> all of the matter in the viewable universe seems to be streaming.
> Not that there's some huge thing there, but it's where the
> center of mass is. Anyone want to discuss this?

It seems to me that Kiehn, on one hand suggests that chirality
can somehow result from a non-isotropic aysmmetrical universe, 
an then on the other hand he uses a symmetrical (isotropic) 
matrix to describe the relationship between D,H and E,B.

Kiehn's chiral matrix results in a complex impedance of free
space, with a resulting wave velocity which is different
for right or left hand circularly polarized waves, and
furthermore is also different for forward and backward 
propagating circularly polarized waves.  

On page four of the paper he states: "Examples of such quaternionic
solutions that indicate that the phase velocity of propagation 
in the inbound and outbound directions are not the same
have been published." Rather than providing any references
he provides a [?].

Is there any experimental evidence of this effect? 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 07:24:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28845;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:23:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:23:25 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981115153031.00e82028 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="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:30:31 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Size of the noble gases, etc
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA28743
Resent-Message-ID: <"hmrhk.0.X27.i7lJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24596
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

What do you think of this?

Dennis


>Return-Path: <rife-list-request eskimo.com>
>Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:42:01 -0800
>X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com
>Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:41:56 -0800
>To: rife-list eskimo.com
>From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk eskimo.com>
>Subject: Size of the noble gases, etc
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id
BAA30922
>Resent-Message-ID: <"eXMp-1.0.LZ7.e7gJs" mx1>
>Resent-From: rife-list eskimo.com
>X-Mailing-List: <rife-list eskimo.com> archive/latest/20314
>X-Loop: rife-list eskimo.com
>Resent-Sender: rife-list-request eskimo.com
>
>I can understand how the noble gases can be smaller atoms than some because 
>the full complement of electrons in a shell could tend to pull the whole 
>package together regarding the plus and minus charges.  
>
>But I find it strange that Hydrogen is even larger than Oxygen.  And I 
>don't understand why Atomic Radius is not directly proportional to 
>Atomic Volume.
>
>(I copied enough to include all of the noble gases here and placed *'s next 
>to those).
>
>Name	Sym	Atomic Number	Atomic Radius	Atomic Volume
>
>Helium*	He	2	0.49 �	19.5 cm�/mol
>Neon*	Ne	10	0.51 �	17.3 cm�/mol
>Fluorine	F	9	0.57 �	12.6 cm�/mol
>Oxygen	O	8	0.65 �	14.0 cm�/mol
>Nitrogen	N	7	0.75 �	17.3 cm�/mol
>Hydrogen	H	1	0.79 �	14.4 cm�/mol
>Argon*	Ar	18	0.88 �	23.9 cm�/mol
>Carbon	C	6	0.91 �	4.58 cm�/mol
>Chlorine	Cl	17	0.97 �	16.9 cm�/mol
>Krypton*	Kr	36	1.03 �	38.9 cm�/mol
>Sulfur	S	16	1.09 �	15.5 cm�/mol
>Bromine	Br	35	1.12 �	25.6 cm�/mol
>Boron	B	5	1.17 �	4.6 cm�/mol
>Selenium	Se	34	1.22 �	16.45 cm�/mol
>Phosphorus	P	15	1.23 �	17.0 cm�/mol
>Xenon*	Xe	54	1.24 �	37.3 cm�/mol
>Iodine	I	53	1.32 �	25.74 cm�/mol
>Arsenic	As	33	1.33 �	13.1 cm�/mol
>Radon*	Rn	86	1.34 �	50.5 cm�/mol
>
>
>
>




Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 07:49:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03908;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:47:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:47:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b2749ede448b [12.21.208.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:53:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"CHOJj1.0.-y.5UlJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24597
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:20 AM 11/15/98, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
[snip]
>  Also I am more than a little dismayed watching
>the hypocritical attacks from some who themselves post nonsense
>(ie. off-topic) posts who now are attacking others who post
>nonsense posts that would have surely ended their threads by now.
[snip]


At 4:38 PM 11/14/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>***{If I may borrow a word that you used at the beginning of this post:
>bullshit. Horace himself admitted, just a few days ago, that SETI falls
>within the charter of the group. It was only when he discovered that such
>an admission conflicted with his emotion-based desire to shut me up that he
>reversed his stance. The fact is that these discussions have been perfectly
>on topic, and you all know it.
[snip]

This is a distortion of the facts.  I said it *appears* that it is on
topic.  I also asked for an interpretation and/or vote.  About 2 weeks ago
I called for (1) improved definition of the charter, (2) a clarification of
the intent of the charter from Bill Beaty, and (3) and end to the SETI/UFO
discussion.  Having almost no responce, I assumed myself to be in a small
minority and that *well mannered and scientific* discussion of the Dore
incident to be on topic.  I continued with the discuission, posting among
other things, calculations of implied circular orbits from parallax
information, blue shift velocity calculations, etc.  This is not
hypocritical in my opinion, though I may be guilty of rubbing salt into the
wound.   I see the protracted discussion of alien photos and conspiracy
theories as a venture into the absurd and anything but serious scientific
discussion. The tone has become disrespectful and has no place here in my
opinion.  Enough is enough.

Here are a few posts of mine relating to the above:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:37:30 -0900
>To:vortex-l eskimo.com
>From:hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
>Subject:Re: Vortex = BS chat room
>
>At 5:54 AM 11/4/98, Ross Tessien wrote:
>[snip]
>>Is this a scientific forum, or a chat room.
>>
>
>
>Why on earth will no one act to limit valid topics here?  Otherwise, this
>list is or soon will be toast.  There will be seven thousand subscribers
>with nothing but conspiratorial UFOs between their ears.
>
>If limiting topics is not acceptable how about forming a new list?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:06:51 -0900
>To:vortex-l eskimo.com
>From:hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
>Subject:Re: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
>Bcc:
>
>At 10:22 PM 11/2/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
>[snip]
>>
>>Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> To: Vortex
>>>
>>> I think this SETI discussion is getting out of hand. It is off topic.
>>
>>We have already been around this bend, Jed. Cold fusion science, if it
>>can be called a science, is not the only topic suitable for discussion
>>on vortex.
>>
>>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
>>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
>
>I am dismayed to discover that Jim O. is right about this.
>
>Let's look at the charter: "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.)  Skeptics beware, the topics
>also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of
>excess energy in "free energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity
>generation and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims."
>
>It appears SETI stuff and all manner of alien/UFO/MIB discussion would
>fall into the "all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims" category, although
>I suspect this  may have orginally implied "all sorts of supposedly
>crackpot free energy claims."  Since this is a privately owned public
>list, with Bill Beaty the owner, I guess we should ask Bill Beaty what
>this means.  Well, what does it mean Bill?
>
>Bill, how about a vote on limiting discussion to possible free energy
>producing devices or anomalies and making alien/UFO/MIB/SETI/(gov't
>conspiracy)/(global warming)/(melting ice pack) stuff off topic.  It
>appears there is a great deal of tolerance for off topic stuff as it is.
>This would only provide a basis for complaint for those who simply have
>had enough dilution.
>

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 07:56:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07195;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:54:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:54:42 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981115160147.00eac404 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: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:01:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
Resent-Message-ID: <"cMBxO3.0.Dm1.1blJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24598
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 10:43 AM 11/14/98 -0800, you wrote:

>We are just climbing toward solar maximum.  This past minimum the maximum
>aether flow was out of the southern hemisphere of the sun.  As we approach
>solar maximum, the aether flow out of north and south becomes equal as it
>transitions toward the northern hemisphere being the primary emission path
>of aether.  You can think of the core emitting the aether as oscillating
>along the rotation axis, slightly, north south during each cycle.

I've seen it called Cycle 23?

>the axis of a rotating fluidized bed that is gravitationally bound, is the
>path of least resistance for aether flow.  So the excess aether begins
>flowing outward in the high lattitudes.  Likewise, during the reduction in
>flow, the particles of the sun 'fall' downward in the southern hemisphere as
>the fluidization is falling in that region.  Whether the fluidization is
>increasing, or decreasing, is one parameter that leads to the polarity of
>the solar magnetic field.

The northern aurora of the Earth is crescent shaped as opposed to circular.
What does this mean?


>Anyway, the flow of aether out of the sun along any path is expanding like
>that, so the ability to float the particles of the sun is decreasing with
>radius.
>
>So, if the flow velocity increases, all of the particles rise up to a new
>radius and again attain equilibrium.  
>
>The gist is, we should see changes in the solar behavior appear near the
>poles first, and then proceed down toward the equator.  We already know that
>this is the case as far as sun spots are concerned (look up "butterfly
>pattern" and you will get lot's of hits).  But this solar maximum
>transition, we have Ulysees orbiting the poles, and SOHO back on line
>watching the solar disk at eccliptic lattitudes, along with Pioneer,
>Voyager, IMP, YOKOH, etc. satellites monitoring the solar particle emissions
>in 3D all at the same time.  
>
>I'll have to look in on which pole Ulysees is flying past during maximum.
>But what is surprising to everyone, is that as we approach maximum, the
>solar wind velocities in certain places are dropping.  Most people don't
>know about the paper I mentioned.  At least I heard no mention of it at the
>SOHO conference in Maine, and those were a group of guys that are the PI's
>of probably half or more of the SOHO instruments.

Does a planetary alignment cause energy bursts from the sun?


Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 08:00:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA09195;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:59:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:59:41 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b274ac3967bf [208.228.222.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:06:19 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: BILL BEATY ON VACAION?
Resent-Message-ID: <"X_zux1.0.bF2.iflJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24599
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Where are you Bill?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 08:18:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14831;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:17:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:17:37 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981115162414.00eabd78 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: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:24:14 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"gbnP32.0.ed3.WwlJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24600
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 06:53 AM 11/15/98 -0900, you wrote:

>>Bill, how about a vote on limiting discussion to possible free energy
>>producing devices or anomalies and making alien/UFO/MIB/SETI/(gov't
>>conspiracy)/(global warming)/(melting ice pack) stuff off topic.

The conspiracy stuff might be related to possible hydrogen
dissociation/recombination misunderstandings. The global warming / melting
ice pack is a feedback mechanism of what research path to pursue. Isn't this
why we are looking into CF in the first place? I want to appologize if I
went a little overboard on this subject. I feel that the situation may have
been less impending if technology were allowed to find its' course in the
past. Perhaps the time constraints that exist if these crackpot catastrophy
scenarios have some basis would indicate serious inquiry into a certain most
respected professor's work?

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 09:31:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25011;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 09:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 09:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981115123411.00b96b00 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:34:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Chiral Vacuum
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XZ658.0.Y66.o-mJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24601
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:15 AM 11/15/98 -0800, >Robert Stirniman wrote
>Kiehn's chiral matrix results in a complex impedance of free
>space, with a resulting wave velocity which is different
>for right or left hand circularly polarized waves, and
>furthermore is also different for forward and backward 
>propagating circularly polarized waves.  
>
>On page four of the paper he states: "Examples of such quaternionic
>solutions that indicate that the phase velocity of propagation 
>in the inbound and outbound directions are not the same
>have been published." Rather than providing any references
>he provides a [?].
>
>Is there any experimental evidence of this effect? 
>

The question mark means, "insert your experiment here"

:^)

Seriously, I'm only aware of indirect evidence, such as symmetry breaking
of organic molecules (perhaps indicative of a low energy state corresponding
to the chiral anisotropy). Most experiments I can think of suggest
a directional anisotropy which gives rise to chirality, not the "defect"
that Kiehn has in mind. Consider the following...

	IS THE UNIVERSE BIREFRINGENT? That is, does universe behave like a crystal
in which light moving in one direction acts differently
 from light going in another direction? Radio waves from distant galaxies
must pass through the vast reaches of an intergalactic medium filled with
 stray magnetic fields and a tenuous plasma of ions and electrons. Through
a well-known phenomenon called the Faraday effect, these ions and
 fields in the cosmic prairie subtly rotate the polarization of the radio
waves (the orientation of their electric fields) on their way toward Earth.
 This is a very slight effect but it has been measured in the case of light
coming from many galaxies; the effect is proportional to the magnetic field
 strengths and ion densities, as well as the square of the light's
wavelength. (Typically about 5- 8% of the light from a galaxy is plane
polarized,
 most of this in the form of synchrotron radiation.) Now two researchers,
Borge Nodland at the University of Rochester (bnod lle.rochester.
 edu; 716-275-5772) and John Ralston at the University of Kansas
(ralston kuphsx.phsx.ukans.edu; 913-864-4020), have studied
 polarization rotation data for 160 galaxies and have perceived that in
addition to the Faraday effect, there seems to be an extra mysterious
 angular dependency at work. Indeed, the rotation varies consistently with
the angle across the sky, as if the universe had an axis. That is, the
 amount of polarization rotation depends on the distance to a galaxy as
well as on the cosine of the angle between the incoming radio waves and
 an axis that apparently lies in the direction of the constellation
Sextans. This anomaly would seem to challenge some important physics concepts,
 such as the notion that there is no preferred direction in space and the
notion that space itself is isotropic (the same in all directions) or
 homogeneous (the same in all places). One possible explanation might be
the existence of "domain walls" between different realms of the
 cosmos, as prescribed in certain particle physics theories. The soundness
of their study depends, among other things, on the quality and amount
 of polarization observations, and Nodland and Ralston therefore look
forward to acquiring additional data. (To appear in Physical Review
 Letters, 21 April 1997; see figures at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics.
Reminder---science journalists can obtain a copy of PRL articles by
 contacting AIP Public Information at physnews aip.org) 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 10:39:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04813;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:34:47 -0800
Message-Id: <199811151834.KAA18125 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: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
Resent-Message-ID: <"o3Tbm3.0.3B1.B-nJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24602
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi;
>
>At 10:43 AM 11/14/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>We are just climbing toward solar maximum.  

>I've seen it called Cycle 23?

Since the first telescopes, back in the 1650's or so, man learned that the
sun had spots by projecting the image onto a white screen.  So we have sun
spot, and solar cycle information going back that far.  cycle 23 means this
is the 23rd cycle since the solar cycle was firmly identified back in the
1800's I think.  I could look it up, but basically the guy to discover the
regular 11 year pattern in solar activity began numbering the cycles.  


>The northern aurora of the Earth is crescent shaped as opposed to circular.
>What does this mean?

Auroral and Austral activity follow the sun spot cycle, and they also show
the 22 pattern of magnetic reversal.  But I have seen complete circles, in
addition to crescents.  We have a satellite up watching the auroras and
other atmospheric properties, and ground based observations have been going
on for a very long time.  Auroras, and volcanoes are perhaps two of the best
pieces of historical data, aside from the solar observations themselves.
Tree rings and ice cores give us much longer records now.

All that is happening in the aurora's, is that there is a preferred path for
ions coming from the sun, since the earth's axis is at a ~90 angle to the
direction of motion of those ions.  Most of them strike on the leading edge
of the earth, forming a crescent as they follow the earth's magnetic field
lines which form a sort of funnel.  But some do strike all around the pole.  

when you create images like that, you have to set the contrast at some level
to bring out the details you want to show.  They could set it so that you
see the entire pole washed out, or so that you only see a thin crescent.
That is done by choice of the astro physicist.  

The same thing happens when you photograph a distant galaxy or nebula.  You
can take a short exposure to see the bright details, and a long exposure to
see the faint details.  What most people assume at first, is that the two
images will always look the same because we are used to looking at objects
with surfaces.  but when you are observing mostly transparent objects, this
is no longer the case.

You see the foreground and background regions of the object in the same
image.  And the faint distribution of gases often looks nothing at all like
the bright distribution.  Centaurus A galaxy for example, shows huge stellar
extension lobes along the line of the radio jets (aether jets blasting stars
right out of the galaxy to damp the angular momentum out so that it can
return to being an elliptical galaxy after consuming a smaller galaxy that
led to it's becoming a spiral like object).  You don't see that shape at all
in normal pictures of that galaxy.

So too is the case for the auroras.  We mustn't assume that the simple
crescent shape at high intensity will be the same as at low intensity.  I
would expect that this is in fact the case.  But I am aware in the back of
my mind that the auroras, even from the satellit photos, fall into the class
of objects which are translucent, and so you must be ready for surprises,
even if you don't expect them.

If you are ever surprised by what you see, then you don't understand the
physics driving them well enough!


>Does a planetary alignment cause energy bursts from the sun?
>

Good question.  Probably so.  But on a trivial level.  It will be
interesting to watch how the upcoming planetary allignment affects the sun.

However there is something even more interesting about that question.  In
your mind, you are looking at the planets affecting the sun.  What is not
normally realized is that the sun is what is driving the motions of the
planets, at least in part.  It is known that the ice ages keep cadence with
the motions of the earth's ellipticity precession, tilt precession, etc.

What isn't in our lexicon yet, is the possibility that the reason for the
ellipticity of the earth is because it has an orbital period that is close
to an acoustic harmonic of the sun.  Mercury, with a large ellipticity,
orbits with a period that is approximately 3 times the solar rotational period.

If you get tiny gusts of aether, and they distort the gravitational
potential by slightly reducing it, then the planets will have an excursion
to larger radii away from the sun during the emission increase.  When the
emission excess subsides, then the planet falls into a lower orbit.  

The earth has it's own momentum, apart from the sun.  So if the sun had no
harmonic that remained in tune with the earth's orbit for a long time, then
it would not "resonate" with that emission energy.  

A major planetary alignment, therefore, could lead to an increase in flow of
aether for two reasons.  A) the planets, out of synchrony with the solar
oscillations, could alter the geometry of the solar matter such that an
excess of aether is emitted.  or B) the solar harmonics may still be driving
the planets, and thus may emit a large amount of aether in cadence with the
orbit of each planet, in which case an exceptionally large amount of aether
would be emitted during the upcoming planetary alignment.

The third case is that the sun doesn't have harmonics driving each planet
and so nothing at all will happen.

IOW, I cannot make any hard predictions from such an event because the mass
of the planets is so trivial compared to the sun (something like 99 percent
of the mass of the entire solar system).

Also, any major flaring would occur during fluidization, and settling, of
the solar matter (before and after the event).  And the event is coming up
during solar maximum, which is the aether flow transition period, not the
maximum north south aether flow assymetry period.

We are heading toward an exceptional solar cycle in that we are on a 22 year
repeat with several major quakes and such in the past.  But major quakes
occur at all times through the cycle, and there isn't yet enough statistical
information to say, "this time frame is when we are most likely to have
earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes and solar wind storms".

To even see the periodicity in a lot of the geo physical events you need a
lot of data, and you need to do a lot of statistics.  IOW, at first glance
things appear random.  But on analysis, the periodicities are found.

There are some phenomena that show strong periodicities, such as the dust in
glacial ice cores.  That shows a strong 11 year pattern dating back hundreds
of thousands of years.  The question is whether that increase / decrease in
dust is due to volcanoes, or to dry arid planes and cyclic dry periods.
Either one could do it, but if it was clear evidence of volcanic
periodicity, then it would likely be strong evidence for earthquake
periodicity too.

Parkfield is the only quake that so far shows a good periodic behavior.
Remember, we have only had seismometers for about a hundred years, and most
of the world has only had them installed for about 30 years.  So when you
are searching for a 22 year pattern, we just don't have the data yet.

That is why it is easier to find the data in volcanoes.  They go pop and a
lay person can say, "hey, that thing went off over there" and it get's into
the papers or historical accounts.  But since they can have hundreds of
years delay, to seek out whether they tend more often to fall on the 22 year
solar cycle becomes difficult.  

Mauna Loa is the exception.  They find a strong pattern of periodicity
centered on 22.5 years from radio carbon dating over the past 10,000 years
or so.

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 10:58:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15758;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:56:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:56:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811151856.MAA10242 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:54:58 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"TRom11.0.3s3.oFoJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24603
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 04:34 AM 11/15/98 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>***{If they are unwilling to coexist with me, and if you are unwilling to
>>coexist with me, then don't you think you should at least have the honesty
>>to come right out and say so?
>
>It's not a matter of honesty...I just didn't realize it was hopeless until
>now.  I am unwilling to be on the same list with you, Mitchell Jones....as
>you are presently behaving, that is.

***{Most people accumulate a growing burden of guilt as they go through
life, Scott. They do it by becoming "well adjusted"--i.e., by making
compromises to get along with irrational people. In so doing, they
surrender the creation of their personalities to the thoughts, values, and
judgments of others. Over the years they repeatedly choose to adopt beliefs
and personality traits that they sense are wrong, because they perceive
them to be socially expedient. Their fatal error lies in failing to realize
that each such act drains away a tiny portion of their self respect until,
in the end, nothing remains but a feeling of self loathing. Such people, of
course, do not understand, intellectually, what has happened to them, but
they nevertheless feel its emotional effects. They feel dead inside, and
they feel an overpowering fear and hatred welling up from deep within
themselves, whenever they encounter people who, psychogically, are alive.
People who are self-assertive, people who reason and form their own
opinions, people who argue, people who don't seem to care whether they fit
in--they hate them all. And that process, Scott, is the ultimate and
fundamental explanation for why you guys are unwilling to coexist with me.
Well here's a flash for you: I see the making of compromises to get along
with irrational people for what it is--the ultimate act of personal self
destruction--*and I don't do it.* Because of that, I am at peace with
myself, and, though you may not believe it, I am thoroughly enjoying this
exchange. The reason is that this is a moral test: one of those little
episodes that occur from time to time which force us to stand up and
declare what we are. Its like watching a good drama, where as the climax
approaches each of the players is forced to reveal what lies within his
soul, to declare himself for good or for evil. The only difference is that
this little drama is for real! --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>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 Nov 15 11:25:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24710;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:24:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:24:47 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:24:34 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Vortex-L topic limits
In-Reply-To: <199811140417.WAA25295 mail11.jump.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981114175651.1525A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qAC07.0.u16.-foJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24604
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> This group of late has been receiving divisive and off-topic posts from a
> small group of would-be censors.

That group is composed of longtime Vortex-L users, and is not small.

> The proof that censorship is their intent
> is straightforward: shareware and freeware programs are available which
> permit anyone to set e-mail filters to screen out undesired topics and
> individuals. 

The limits to the range of topics is an important issue in any forum, and
quick accusations of censorship do nothing to alter this.

E-mail filters can be used, yet their effects are limited: look at most
usenet Newsgroups.  On Newsgroups, no posting is ever off-topic.  As a
result, no amount of filtering can extract a quality discussion.  There is
no signal in the noise.

Limitation of topics works two ways. The users determine the topics, but
more importantly, the common topics acts upon the user community
by attracting/ repelling individuals.  If the topics wander too far, the
user community will be slowly altered, and so the changes will become
permanent and the topics will never wander back again.  

To intentionally attract a particular online community, there must be a
selected range of topics.  This is part of any intentional "community
sculpting".  Those who enjoy the selected topics will see the limits as
being necessary.  Those who disapprove will see it as censorship. 

Better you should argue that VORTEX-L HAS NO TOPIC LIMITS.  This is true. 
I started VORTEX-L with no topic limits, then as a "control", I started
FREENRG-L with clearly stated limits.  In the past, the range of VORTEX-L
topics has basically been whatever this community finds interesting.  When
the community DOESN'T find something interesting, the topic falls dead for
lack of participants.  (SETI isn't falling dead!)

However, long term "topic wander" also causes the makeup of the user
community to wander, and so the range of common topics on VORTEX-L today
is different than it was at the start, in 1995.  I'm not so sure that the
changes have been in a direction of improvement.

> They are disturbed because the "character of the list" is not to their
> liking--which means: they are disturbed by the fact that, even if they set
> up e-mail filters, other members of the list will be receiving material of
> which they do not approve. 

No, I think you wrongly make the assumption that the complaints are
dishonest and actually a hidden motive.  Why not assume that the
complaints are honest: other users simply want Vortex-l to be a forum for
THEIR range of topics, not yours.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 15 12:23:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04359;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:20:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:20:33 -0800
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:12:33 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: AM interested .GA Water  General questions of energy and CF to Vo...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981115082614.007f6a40 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981115145812.8451A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"O04v83.0.n31.DUpJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24605
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	Mitchell:

	I am and have been interested in your work.

	Vo:

	NOW:  Some general questions, in good spirit,

	Request:  I ask that any units be in some form so we can easily 
compare the various type,  ie., heat, electricity and so on... PLEASE!

	Given:  We start with some set up or gizmo or system, examples 
include but are not limited to CF set up or cell, variations on black 
light power, like Vince's, sono or turbine stuff... like the water-rotor 
set ups...

	a] First set of questions is more or less directed to CF or 
aqueous electrolytic cells;

		Q:  How much energy in ... electrical
		Q:  How much out ... as heat, or other... AND
		Q:  If the   cell makes H and O .. and one were to burn 
the H and O ... how much energy out is from this source...

	Recap on electrolytic ... sort of hypothetical:

	1] cell requires or draws 10 volts at 250 mA for 20 hours [ and 
this equals 'some common form'... to be called SCF ... ... ie, watt seconds
	2] cell makes 'x' heat in SCF
	3] cell makes 2 liters H at STP and one liter O, at STP and if 
you burn the H and O you get 'x' units of eat in SCF

	b]  same general qustions for other systems, excluding the 
evolution and burning of O and H... unless applicable ...

	The idea:

	To account for, as well as can be ALL of the I and O ...

		Can do?

				JHS

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> 
>   At 08:20 AM 11/15/98 -0500, I mistyped:
> >  Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
> >info to vortex since most seem interested anyway. 
> 
>  That obviously was an error (mea culpa) and should have read:
>   "Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this 
>   info to vortex since most seem uninterested anyway." 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 12:24:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04661;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:21:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:21:10 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <364EEECA.3FDAFC54 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:10:02 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Gravity Theory Survives
References: <36260C82.1DB1D964 bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xx"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xx"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XnyG42.0.l81.sUpJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24606
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Gravity appears to be working as everyone always thought, ...

        From New Scientist, 17 October 1998

Hi All,

I don't recall if anyone mentioned Mordechai Milgrom's
theory regarding the Pioneer anomoly, recently discussed
in the 12-98 Scientific American.

Quoting from another source:

[Weizmann Institute of Science--Science Tips]
Public Affairs Department, 76100 Rehovot, Israel
Press and General Inquiries (located at bottom of page)
Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1997

"One of the most intriguing mysteries of astrophysics is the so-called
"missing mass" problem: the mass of heavenly bodies as estimated on the
basis of how much light they emit is vastly smaller than their mass as
calculated through Newton's laws of gravity and motion.

A standard explanation for this conundrum is the supposed existence of
invisible or "dark" matter that does not emit light or other
radiation and therefore has so far escaped detection.
Prof. Mordechai Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute's Condensed Matter
Physics Department has proposed a radically different explanation.

According to Milgrom, the mystery disappears if we modify
Newton's laws when dealing with gigantic galactic systems.
In a study reported in the Astrophysical Journal
(March 20, 1997, Vol. 478, No. 1), Milgrom provides
new evidence for this theory, and applies it to the largest
definable bodies of mass known to exist - galaxy superclusters
having the form of long threads and referred to as
large-scale filaments.

Milgrom maintains that Newtonian physics works fine for celestial bodies
such as planets and stars, but not for more complex groupings of these
bodies. For example, according to Newton's law of inertia, the force (F)
required to produce any level of acceleration (a) of a body of
mass (m) is equal to m times a , or F = ma. Milgrom claims that
for very small accelerations - like those in complex heavenly
configurations such as galaxies - force is proportional
to the square of the acceleration and not
to just the acceleration itself."

Does anyone have a comment on F = ma^2?

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 12:34:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11836;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:33:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:33:43 -0800
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:25:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Experiment question Re: This disruption must stop!
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b2749ede448b [12.21.208.16]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981115151757.8451B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ae7lU1.0.su2.dgpJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24607
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	I confess I have not followed all of the thread here.  It seems 
people are angry ... there is one part of the letter below.... which I 
have a question about...\

	 SO:   With a LOT of cuts....

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 8:20 AM 11/15/98, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> [snip]
> >  Also I am more than a little dismayed watching

	cut....

> 
> At 4:38 PM 11/14/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> [snip]
> >***{If I may borrow a word that you used at the beginning of this post:
> >bullshit.

	cut...
> 
.... minority and that *well mannered and scientific* discussion of the Dore
> incident to be on topic.
...... blue shift velocity calculations, etc.

	cut...
> 
> Here are a few posts of mine relating to the above:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:37:30 -0900
> >To:vortex-l eskimo.com
> >From:hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
> >Subject:Re: Vortex = BS chat room

> >From:hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
> >Subject:Re: Jim Ostrovsky vs. the MIB's
> >Bcc:

> >>Jed Rothwell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To: Vortex
> >>on vortex.

	AH HA.... !!! This is it.... this is my question !!!!


> >>
> >>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
> >>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
> >

	What is the experiment proposed?   I will, if I have the 
equipment ... try to replicate ....
	BUT:  I have to know what is referred to ....

	Any help???



----------  cuts....
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 12:51:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16991;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:48:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:48:31 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be10cd$b65ef890$4c54ddcf craig>
From: "Craig Haynie" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Please Reconsider Mitch!
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:25:30 -0600
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 MAA16942
Resent-Message-ID: <"vnodd.0.L94.VupJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24608
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!



>***{Most people accumulate a growing burden of guilt as they go through
>life, Scott. They do it by becoming "well adjusted"--i.e., by making
>compromises to get along with irrational people. In so doing, they
>surrender the creation of their personalities to the thoughts, values, and
>judgments of others. Over the years they repeatedly choose to adopt beliefs
>and personality traits that they sense are wrong, because they perceive
>them to be socially expedient. Their fatal error lies in failing to realize
>that each such act drains away a tiny portion of their self respect until,
>in the end, nothing remains but a feeling of self loathing. Such people, of
>course, do not understand, intellectually, what has happened to them, but
>they nevertheless feel its emotional effects. They feel dead inside, and
>they feel an overpowering fear and hatred welling up from deep within
>themselves, whenever they encounter people who, psychogically, are alive.
>People who are self-assertive, people who reason and form their own
>opinions, people who argue, people who don't seem to care whether they fit
>in--they hate them all. And that process, Scott, is the ultimate and
>fundamental explanation for why you guys are unwilling to coexist with me.


No, it's because you're off-topic. 

Mitch, I consider myself a good Objectivist, probably like you -- if I read your code words correctly -- but freedom of speech does not mean unrestrained speech. It means the freedom to organize conversations without government restraint. This forum, dedi

cated to the experimentation and explanation of unusual energy phenomena, is such a forum, and it is BECAUSE we are practicing free speech that you must respect the forum for how it's organized.

I remember you from December, 1995, on SPF. I remember that you went out of your way to try to build a heat exchanger much like the one described by CETI at the Powergen Conference, and how you experimentally developed evidence that the Powergen Demo coul

dn't be dumping 1.5 KW into the atmosphere as described, leaving some doubt as to the veracity of the observations. This was good science, Mitch. Incomplete, perhaps, but nonetheless, good. Mitch, it was this memory of you that made me glad to see you joi

n Vortex a couple of months ago. 

But this forum was not designed to talk about alien contact, and up to now, no one has. Why do you believe otherwise, considering that you're a newcomer here? You just joined a couple of months ago, and yet you claim to completely understand the topics th

at are relevant for this forum? Is this the argument that you're making? It's possible that you may be misunderstanding the words written down to describe this forum by Bill Beaty. It's also possible that the words are misleading you to believe that alien

 contact is an appropriate topic. But those words were written to REFLECT the character of this forum, not to define it. This forum was developed for new energy discussion, and until now, no one has ever challenged this central theme for which this forum 

was developed. Like the others, and to anyone who consistantly reads the messages here, it is quite clear to me that the topic of the list does not include persistent discussion of any other subject matter. The list has 'tolerated' some other discussions 

from time to time, but such discussions were supposed to be labeled "OFF TOPIC" and were supposed to be dropped when others complained. In fact, for a while, the only relevant topics to this forum were considered to be Discussion of Experimental Evidence 

related to New Energy. Even Greg Watson's dubious discovery of a magnetic motor was considered off-topic until he began talking about his experiments.

So, unless you're arguing that there should be NO control over freedom of speech in a discussion list, of any kind, then your argument that you're on-topic simply doesn't hold water. Please reconsider your direction, because even if you win, we will all l

ose.

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 12:58:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22237;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:49:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199811152049.MAA30783 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: Gravity Theory Survives
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wd2M12.0.NR5.E1qJs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24609
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
>
>Gravity appears to be working as everyone always thought, ...
>
>        From New Scientist, 17 October 1998
>
>Hi All,
>
>I don't recall if anyone mentioned Mordechai Milgrom's
>theory regarding the Pioneer anomoly, recently discussed
>in the 12-98 Scientific American.

I mentioned this in several articles in vortex when the original paper was
introduced.  And, the original JPL paper also mentions the affect.

But the equation describing it wasn't put forward by Milgrom alone, it was
by Milgrom and Bekenstein.  It is known as the Milgrom Bekenstein equation
which basically says, in regions of low gravitational potential, gravity
"pulls" a little harder.

If you study the models I am working with using aether motions tied to mass
to energy conversion rates, what I find is that there is an additional
thrust that is capable of inducing a gravitational effect, except that it is
a repulsive effect.  This is due to the "conversion of mass to energy",
where you just assume that the energy content of the quantum vacuum is
finite, rather than infinite.  In this case, you really have "mass to space"
conversion, and stars *drive* the expansion of the universe.

That second component can now fall off with distance, and the effect LOOKS
LIKE gravity is getting stronger.  In fact, the repulsion is getting weaker.

>Milgrom maintains that Newtonian physics works fine for celestial bodies
>such as planets and stars, but not for more complex groupings of these
>bodies. For example, according to Newton's law of inertia, the force (F)
>required to produce any level of acceleration (a) of a body of
>mass (m) is equal to m times a , or F = ma. Milgrom claims that
>for very small accelerations - like those in complex heavenly
>configurations such as galaxies - force is proportional
>to the square of the acceleration and not
>to just the acceleration itself."
>
>Does anyone have a comment on F = ma^2?

The expansion of aether follows a 1/R^2 profile.  But you must work with the
acceleration and deceleration of the aether flow in a fluid mechanical way.
So it gets complicated.  That said, it is possible to trace the phenomena
all the way into stars.

However, the JPL findings regarding the spacecraft don't necessarily make
sense according to the above models, including the Milgrom Bekenstein
equation.  And there is reason to believe that the anomalous acceleration
may indeed be due to radiation of thermal energy, even though the original
paper contended that it wasn't.

Alternately, we may be seeing an effect akin to the Casimir effect where the
size of the object alters the numbers of frequencies of wave energy the
object can attenuate, arriving from deep space (down to Planck scale
wavelengths, ie E-35 meters), and thus it's ability to gravitate would be
altered, slightly.  But this too would produce an acceleration in the other
direction.

The paper didn't give enough detail about when the data was taken, or what
the radial (solar) trajectory looked like during the periods of excess
acceleration to sort it out.

I am on a wait and see pattern on that one due to the papers that claim that
the thermal emissions may account for the acceleration.  If they do, then
the effect goes away. 

If there is an effect that is real, then it should exist in comets, and the
trajectories of their tails should illucidate the problem because you have a
larger hunk of matter surrounded by a huge stream of gravitational potential
"tracers" in the tail.  

The thing that is wierd, is that the solar wind accelerates as it heads out
away from the sun, rather than decelerate as the spacecraft do.  This would
mean that if the spacecraft data are correct, and due to size of the
objects, then there is a saddle in the gravitational interaction of objects,
and some physical size in between atoms and planets that gravitates best.
The satellites, or fist sized rocks or ?? may gravitate better than either
larger or smaller objects.

That would be a new and interesting result.

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 18:55:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31047;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:54:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:54:21 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:54:14 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BILL BEATY ON VACAION?  Yes.
In-Reply-To: <v01530504b274ac3967bf [208.228.222.233]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981115185219.10827A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bFD2Y2.0.1b7.TFvJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24610
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Horace Heffner wrote:

> Where are you Bill?

Yep, I have folks in town, took some vacation days, and have'nt checked
email since Thursday night.  Imagine my suprise! 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 15 20:16:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA27561;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:13:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:13:52 -0800
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:05:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: RELAY Re: Experiment question Re: This disruption must stop! (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981115230542.23858A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"EGTL82.0.Xk6.0QwJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24611
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:00:17 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
To: herman antioch-college.edu
Subject: Re: Experiment question Re: This disruption must stop!

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
>
>         AH HA.... !!! This is it.... this is my question !!!!
> 
> > >>
> > >>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
> > >>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
> > >
> 
>         What is the experiment proposed?   I will, if I have the
> equipment ... try to replicate ....
>         BUT:  I have to know what is referred to ....
> 

The above sentence was my composition,John.  The experiment referred to
was to
aim a Radio Telescope antenna in the vicinity of EQ Pegasus and look for
a very narrow band signal in the range of 1.453 ghz. Then , aim the
telescope off axis and see if it disappeared. Go to on axis again and
verify.

This experiment WAS performed by Dr. Ray Norris of the Australian Radio
Telescope something or other institute with the initials ATNF  pursuant
to a similar suggestion by John Winterflood. A very strong narrow band
signal WAS observed at 1.451 ghz and the signal was screen dumped to
Norris's Website. Unbelievably , because the signal deviated 
less than 1 percent from the stated frequency, Norris decided it was
"probably" a satellite. There are several issues arguing that it was not
,most significant of which was the relative strength (high) and narrow
band ( only   600 hz wide). Norris spent less than 20 minutes observing
this signal,and made no attempt to determine the modulation mode, if
any, before returning the telescope to it's regularly scheduled agenda
of observations elsewhare. 

By this time whatever it was may have moved to a different position or
discontinued altogether. 

It is worthy of note that the signal was drifiting down in frequency
according to other 
amateurs, Dr. Norris may not have been aware of that reported fact. This
fact of course led to speculations that the signal source was a
decellerating spacecraft (doppler effect).

An amatuer version of this experiment would be a ham radio operator with
a moonbounce
setup and the right reciever.  

>         Any help???
> 

There you go, John. I am unable to post to the list or get a message
through to Bill Beaty as to why not (all messages to the domain name
eskimo.com are returned "undeliverable"). If you can participate in my
effort to figure out why this is 
I would appreciate your help. This effect may be accidental censorship
or deliberate.

Jim Ostrowski



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 22:59:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14759;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:52:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:52:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199811160651.AAA18035 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:50:20 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Vortex-L topic limits
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZVZEe2.0.Mc3.XkyJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24612
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> This group of late has been receiving divisive and off-topic posts from a
>> small group of would-be censors.
>
>That group is composed of longtime Vortex-L users, and is not small.
>
>> The proof that censorship is their intent
>> is straightforward: shareware and freeware programs are available which
>> permit anyone to set e-mail filters to screen out undesired topics and
>> individuals.
>
>The limits to the range of topics is an important issue in any forum, and
>quick accusations of censorship do nothing to alter this.
>
>E-mail filters can be used, yet their effects are limited: look at most
>usenet Newsgroups.  On Newsgroups, no posting is ever off-topic.  As a
>result, no amount of filtering can extract a quality discussion.  There is
>no signal in the noise.
>
>Limitation of topics works two ways. The users determine the topics, but
>more importantly, the common topics acts upon the user community
>by attracting/ repelling individuals.  If the topics wander too far, the
>user community will be slowly altered, and so the changes will become
>permanent and the topics will never wander back again.
>
>To intentionally attract a particular online community, there must be a
>selected range of topics.  This is part of any intentional "community
>sculpting".  Those who enjoy the selected topics will see the limits as
>being necessary.  Those who disapprove will see it as censorship.
>
>Better you should argue that VORTEX-L HAS NO TOPIC LIMITS.  This is true.

***{However you slice it, it comes down to the same thing: those who have
been claiming that the SETI discussion is off topic were wrong. Enough
said. --Mitchell Jones}***

>I started VORTEX-L with no topic limits, then as a "control", I started
>FREENRG-L with clearly stated limits.  In the past, the range of VORTEX-L
>topics has basically been whatever this community finds interesting.  When
>the community DOESN'T find something interesting, the topic falls dead for
>lack of participants.  (SETI isn't falling dead!)

***{Indeed, and for a very good reason: it appears that, for the first
time, some actual hard facts are emerging which permit reasoned, scientific
discussion of whether ET's exist. I frankly find this development to be
both astonishing and very exciting, and it is apparent that many other
members of the list feel the same way. Hopefully, since you have now
sanctioned this as a proper line of discussion, they will feel free to
climb out of their foxholes and speak their minds about this topic, either
pro or con. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>However, long term "topic wander" also causes the makeup of the user
>community to wander, and so the range of common topics on VORTEX-L today
>is different than it was at the start, in 1995.  I'm not so sure that the
>changes have been in a direction of improvement.

***{Giving the recent divisive catfight over whether the SETI discussion
was permissible here--which you have now definitively settled--you are
probably correct. I, like you, have no problem with any line of discussion,
so long as the participants are attempting to politely reason together
about the facts. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> They are disturbed because the "character of the list" is not to their
>> liking--which means: they are disturbed by the fact that, even if they set
>> up e-mail filters, other members of the list will be receiving material of
>> which they do not approve.
>
>No, I think you wrongly make the assumption that the complaints are
>dishonest and actually a hidden motive.  Why not assume that the
>complaints are honest: other users simply want Vortex-l to be a forum for
>THEIR range of topics, not yours.

***{Bill, with respect, that assumption simply makes no sense.
Nevertheless, I'll not add further to the statements that I have made on
that topic already. I think it is time to give this matter a rest.
--Mitchell Jones}***

***
>
>((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 15 23:22:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA22227;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:18:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:18:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199811160717.BAA18457 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:16:19 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Please Reconsider Mitch!
Resent-Message-ID: <"XMC5Y.0.DR5.m6zJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24613
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 12:58 PM
>Subject: Re: This disruption must stop!
>
>
>
>>***{Most people accumulate a growing burden of guilt as they go through
>>life, Scott. They do it by becoming "well adjusted"--i.e., by making
>>compromises to get along with irrational people. In so doing, they
>>surrender the creation of their personalities to the thoughts, values, and
>>judgments of others. Over the years they repeatedly choose to adopt beliefs
>>and personality traits that they sense are wrong, because they perceive
>>them to be socially expedient. Their fatal error lies in failing to realize
>>that each such act drains away a tiny portion of their self respect until,
>>in the end, nothing remains but a feeling of self loathing. Such people, of
>>course, do not understand, intellectually, what has happened to them, but
>>they nevertheless feel its emotional effects. They feel dead inside, and
>>they feel an overpowering fear and hatred welling up from deep within
>>themselves, whenever they encounter people who, psychogically, are alive.
>>People who are self-assertive, people who reason and form their own
>>opinions, people who argue, people who don't seem to care whether they fit
>>in--they hate them all. And that process, Scott, is the ultimate and
>>fundamental explanation for why you guys are unwilling to coexist with me.
>
>
>No, it's because you're off-topic.

***{Not according to the charter, and not according to Bill Beaty. It's his
list, not yours, and so the matter is settled, and it's time to move on.
--Mitchell Jones}***

[rest snipped]


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 23:44:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA27467;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:42:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:42:35 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981116074941.00ef9bc8 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, 16 Nov 1998 02:49:41 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: How is Dissociation Energy determined?
Resent-Message-ID: <"yFdtM1.0.1j6.gTzJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24614
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex;

I notice at webelements, that the 'bond enthalpy' of diatomic molecules data
were obtained by spectroscopic or mass spectrometric means:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/nofr-define/enthalpy-diatomics-
bond.html

What procedure is used here? Would they measure the amount of energy
required to dissociate a diatomic molecule? Or, would they measure the
energy released when the atoms combine to the diatomic state and ASSUME that
the same energy would be required to dissociate the molecule?

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 15 23:57:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA30644;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:55:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:55:40 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981116080239.00ee2678 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, 16 Nov 1998 03:02:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex-L topic limits
Resent-Message-ID: <"38LvI.0.kU7.yfzJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24615
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 01:50 AM 11/16/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>I started VORTEX-L with no topic limits, then as a "control", I started
>>FREENRG-L with clearly stated limits.  In the past, the range of VORTEX-L
>>topics has basically been whatever this community finds interesting.  When
>>the community DOESN'T find something interesting, the topic falls dead for
>>lack of participants.  (SETI isn't falling dead!)
>
>***{Indeed, and for a very good reason: it appears that, for the first
>time, some actual hard facts are emerging which permit reasoned, scientific
>discussion of whether ET's exist. I frankly find this development to be
>both astonishing and very exciting, and it is apparent that many other
>members of the list feel the same way. Hopefully, since you have now
>sanctioned this as a proper line of discussion, they will feel free to
>climb out of their foxholes and speak their minds about this topic, either
>pro or con. --Mitchell Jones}***

I think your approach to the matter is well thought out and detailed.
Unfortunately, the ultimate proof would be if we get to see them land.

>>No, I think you wrongly make the assumption that the complaints are
>>dishonest and actually a hidden motive.  Why not assume that the
>>complaints are honest: other users simply want Vortex-l to be a forum for
>>THEIR range of topics, not yours.

Sometimes, I think the basic truth is that some ideas are just to unsettling
with respect to one's world view to consider objectively.


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 00:07:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA01375;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:00:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:00:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b2758c7f6433 [208.228.222.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:07:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Experiment question Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"CIrlb.0.OL.vkzJs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24616
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:25 PM 11/15/98, John Schnurer wrote:
[snip]
>
>        AH HA.... !!! This is it.... this is my question !!!!
>
>
>> >>
>> >>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
>> >>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
>> >
>
>        What is the experiment proposed?   I will, if I have the
>equipment ... try to replicate ....
>        BUT:  I have to know what is referred to ....
>
>        Any help???

John,

You snipped the author reference.  I am responding because your snips might
make it appear some to be a quote of me.  It is actually a quote of Jim
Ostrowski's statement:

>>From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
[snip]
>>In this case we have an experimental result with enough data presented
>>for anyone with the proper equipment to perform a replication.
[snip]

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 00:25:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10388;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:24:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:24:44 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b2759243befd [208.228.222.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:31:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: New list for experiment discussion only
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ax6wQ.0.EY2.B5-Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24617
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 5:11 PM 11/13/98, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>I would like to
>form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
>exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
>off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
>reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
>at a time with NO messages being posted to it.


The more I think about this the better the idea sounds.  I would be willing
to contribute some cash and/or some time to this, if needed for setting it
up.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 00:53:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA15332;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:52:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:52:23 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b275998272b4 [208.228.222.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:59:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Experiment question Re: This disruption must stop!
Resent-Message-ID: <"SjJvp1.0.Ql3.6V-Js" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24618
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:07 PM 11/15/98, I wrote:
[snip]
>You snipped the author reference.  I am responding because your snips might
>make it appear some to be a quote of me.  It is actually a quote of Jim
>Ostrowski's statement:
[snip]

Sorry.  I didn't see that Jim O. had already responded to your question.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 03:40:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06826;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:38:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:38:47 -0800
Message-ID: <004801be1155$203b4480$a6b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: WATER JET CUTTING SYSTEMS (http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjettin
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:34:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE111A.6E546880"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-67mL2.0.ag1.6x0Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24619
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_0042_01BE111A.6E546880
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Any way you slice it?  This type of system was used to help rescue the
toddler
that fell into a well in Midland,Texas several years ago. O/U possibilities
in the
jet?

http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjetting/jetcut1.htm


------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE111A.6E546880
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="WATER JET CUTTING SYSTEMS.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="WATER JET CUTTING SYSTEMS.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjetting/jetcut1.htm
Modified=408323585411BE0162

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE111A.6E546880--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 04:01:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA12015;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:00:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:00:21 -0800
Message-ID: <005801be1158$25048500$a6b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Water Jet Cutting (http://www.geegraphite.com/wjframes.htm)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:55:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE111D.62AD4940"
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: <"HeyZ61.0.fx2.LF1Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24620
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_0016_01BE111D.62AD4940
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cool!

http://www.geegraphite.com/wjframes.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE111D.62AD4940
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Water Jet Cutting.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Water Jet Cutting.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.geegraphite.com/wjframes.htm
Modified=E0373FEE5711BE016B

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BE111D.62AD4940--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 04:28:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA18238;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:27:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:27:43 -0800
Message-ID: <006601be115b$f75cc1e0$a6b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Off Topic;  Water Jet Cutting and Car Wash
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:23:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"cGP8Y1.0.uS4.-e1Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24621
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

About 20 years ago my brother-in-law lost a water heater in his car-wash, so
he decided to
increase the water pressure to about a thousand psi until he could get the
heater fixed.

Just about turned the car-wash into a Chop-Shop.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 04:52:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA24825;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:51:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:51:14 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <364FD6CC.970934B mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:39:56 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Gravity Theory Survives
References: <199811152049.MAA30783 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aPkiG.0.l36.1_1Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24622
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Jack Smith wrote:

 ... I don't recall if anyone mentioned Mordechai Milgrom's
theory regarding the Pioneer anomoly, recently discussed
in the 12-98 Scientific American.

Ross Tessien wrote:

I mentioned this in several articles in vortex when the original
paper was introduced.  And, the original JPL paper also mentions
the effect.  ... the equation ...  is known as the Milgrom
Bekenstein equation which basically says, in regions of low
gravitational potential, gravity "pulls" a little harder. ...

The expansion of aether follows a 1/R^2 profile.
... it is possible to trace the phenomena all the way into stars.

However, the JPL findings regarding the spacecraft don't
necessarily make sense according to the above models,
including the Milgrom Bekenstein equation.  And there
is reason to believe that the anomalous acceleration
may indeed be due to radiation of thermal energy,
even though the original paper contended that it wasn't.

Alternately, we may be seeing an effect akin to the
Casimir effect ...  But this too would produce an acceleration
in the other direction.

The paper didn't give enough detail about when the data was taken,
or what the radial (solar) trajectory looked like during the
periods of excess acceleration to sort it out. ...

The thing that is weird, is that the solar wind accelerates
as it heads out away from the sun, rather than decelerate as
the spacecraft do.

This would mean that if the spacecraft
data are correct, and due to size of the objects, then there
is a saddle in the gravitational interaction of objects,
and some physical size in between atoms and planets that
gravitates best. ...

Ross Tessien

Hi Ross,

Your remarks are very thought-provoking.
Regarding the Milgrom Bekenstein equation and
"The expansion of aether follows a 1/R^2 profile. ..."
you say "the JPL findings regarding the spacecraft don't
necessarily make sense according to the above models,"
Could you present the Milgrom Bekenstein equation  here
and connect it mathematically with the "1/R^2 profile"?
How are the JPL findings not consistent with the
the Milgrom Bekenstein equation?

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 08:38:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA31356;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:36:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:36:54 -0800
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03110701b275f8b7f5ca [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <199811130013_MC2-6017-F04D compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:36:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"F7a9d1.0.qf7.bI5Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24623
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>Report on a Test of the Kinetic Furnace
>
>By Jed Rothwell
>November 12, 1998
>
  This looks like some good work by the great Jed Rothwell.  Lets hope that
it can be replicated.  So far the tests at Bow has shown no excess heat so
there is an inconsistency.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 11:06:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08379;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:04:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:04:45 -0800
Message-ID: <000401be118f$07604de0$99b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Bobcandeu aol.com>
Subject: Waterjet and AbrasiveJet Machining (http://wj.net/waterjet/aboutabr.html)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:28:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE1154.4C80FF40"
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: <"aijnD3.0.o22.AT7Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24625
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_001F_01BE1154.4C80FF40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Water Jet School.

http://wj.net/waterjet/aboutabr.html

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE1154.4C80FF40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Waterjet and AbrasiveJet Machining.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Waterjet and AbrasiveJet Machining.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://wj.net/waterjet/aboutabr.html
Modified=20967DC68E11BE0157

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE1154.4C80FF40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 12:26:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03187;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:32:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:32:53 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:32:18 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Please Reconsider Mitch!
In-Reply-To: <199811160717.BAA18457 mail11.jump.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981116093138.22254F-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZR2n6.0.fn.u66Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24624
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{Not according to the charter, and not according to Bill Beaty. It's his
> list, not yours, and so the matter is settled, and it's time to move on.
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Not quite.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 16 13:36:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25404;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:34:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:28:48 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Severe Vortex-L changes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981114175651.1525A-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981115203607.10827C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"HF9uH.0.rC6.Yf9Ks" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24626
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Nothing in the current Vortex-L rules or "charter" can prevent the central
topics from becoming like Newsgroups: permanently drifting far into
government conspiracy discussions, endless crackpot theory debates, etc. 
In the past this was not such a problem, and a lack of topic limits made
it easy to move from Potapov testing, to CF, to Champion's claims, Greg
Watson device, etc.  Lack of limits kept us from declaring certain topics
to be forbidden, and also aided those of us with extremely divergent
worldviews in tolerating each other's "naive" or "crackpot" ideas.  At
present this is no longer the case.  Today the Vortex users are far more
diverse, and the group itself no longer provides a single focus for
common topics.

Also, Vortex in the past has been self-policing to a large extent.  When
newcomers violated the unwritten "community standards", they drew
universal complaints, and they either changed their behavior, or they
left.  The last week has shown this to no longer be the case.  A
considerable part of the subscribership is interested in pursuing UFO
conspiracy topics, and so according to past policy, it is a valid vortex-L
subject.  But a significant number of subscribers have zero interest in
Alien Conspiracy.  It's not a believer/skeptic conflict.  It's not a
flamewar.  It means that Vortex as a single forum is spread too wide and
has wandered too far. 

There are plenty of forums for government conspiracy discussions, UFO
coverups, fringe theory discussions, etc.  But there are few places for
hard-science people to pursue taboo experiments.  I've been intending to
make some sort of major change here for quite some time, and the present
crisis makes a good stopping point for the current vortex-L. 

I intend to revamp the charter and rules.  I'm considering a 3-channel
setup: a low-traffic "hard science" list, a brainstorm/chat list, and a
results-announcements list.  The target audience will be physical science
people (professional & advanced amateur), and the topics will be similar
to the older vortex discussions: CF, transmutation, energy devices,
antigravity, & unusual physical phenomena.


For anyone who has supported Vortex with recent donations, if the coming
changes prove to be not to your liking I will gladly give a full refund.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 16 13:42:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20230;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:40:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:40:25 -0800
Message-Id: <199811162114.PAA07855 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:13:29 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: New list for experiment discussion only
Resent-Message-ID: <"OcZ1-3.0.zx4.8l9Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24627
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 5:11 PM 11/13/98, Scott Little wrote:
>[snip]
>>I would like to
>>form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
>>exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
>>off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
>>reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
>>at a time with NO messages being posted to it.
>
>
>The more I think about this the better the idea sounds.  I would be willing
>to contribute some cash and/or some time to this, if needed for setting it
>up.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{SOHO is an experiment, Horace, and so are the data collection efforts
of astronomers, both amateur and professional, whether the wavelengths of
interest are optical or otherwise. Indeed, the data collection efforts of
any person with a camera would logically have to be classified as
experiments, provided only that those data are being advanced in support of
some hypothesis of interest to science. In all cases, whether the data were
collected by amateurs or professionals, the decision about whether the
hypothesis has been sufficiently supported must arise out of the cut and
thrust of debate, rather than by authoritarian decrees handed down from on
high by a "moderator" or a "peer reviewer" or anyone else, if it is to be
believed by a rational person. Thus I would simply ask you how such
decisions are to be made in this new experimental group which you propose.
Do you intend to make them by authorian decree, or by the cut and thrust of
debate? And if the former, what safeguards do you propose to ensure that
the decisions are based on reason rather than on some form of prejudice?
Speaking for myself, I see no way that such decisions can be trusted, if
made behind closed doors. I think they need to be made in the open, by the
process of argument and counter-argument, as they are made here. But, of
course, if you do that you lay yourself open to divisive arguments about
whether something is "on topic" or not, and you may even find that someone
is posting comments about alien photographs, or SETI, or UFO's, and you are
right back where you started. Frankly, I like the way the present group is
set up, I like the commitment against censorship that the list owner has
demonstrated, and I think the solution to the recent troubles lies not in
members of the anti-SETI faction going off to sulk together in their own
group, but rather in everyone making a conscious decision to coexist
peacably with others whose interests may not always coincide with their
own. Thus I think your personal funds, the limited nature of which you have
emphasized on numerous occasions, would be better spent acquiring yourself
a set of e-mail filters, so that you will no longer feel motivated to
complain about threads that are of no interest to you. --Mitchell Jones}***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 13:49:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27129;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36506A67.C5D89CE6 css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:09:43 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: AM interested .GA Water  General questions of energy and CF to Vo...
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981115145812.8451A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id NAA27093
Resent-Message-ID: <"ca1c7.0.ld6.3q9Ks" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24628
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> Mitchell:
>         I am and have been interested in your work.
<snip> 
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> >  That obviously was an error (mea culpa) and should have read:
> >   "Thus, I have elected to stop repeatedly posting most of this
> >   info to vortex since most seem uninterested anyway."

Mitchell:
I also am interested, and have always been.  Please do not confuse lack of
comment with lack of interest.  Just practicing self control when there is
nothing constructive to add.



-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 14:43:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11257;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:40:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:40:34 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36505B1D.F2F863F7 css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:04:29 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Aether flow (Mag Field) directions out of Sun
References: <199811141843.KAA22628 Au.oro.net>
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 OAA11181
Resent-Message-ID: <"3zm7F.0.ll2.XdAKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24629
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> We are just climbing toward solar maximum.  This past minimum the maximum
> aether flow was out of the southern hemisphere of the sun.  As we approach
> solar maximum, the aether flow out of north and south becomes equal as it
> transitions toward the northern hemisphere being the primary emission path
> of aether.  You can think of the core emitting the aether as oscillating
> along the rotation axis, slightly, north south during each cycle.

I suppose this is very hypothetical, but what effect do you see this having on
our planets electromagnetic or resonant signature?  I am attempting to isolate
variables for a passive earth field experiment.  Fluctuations or augmentations
due to this event would be relevant to my calculations.  Any hints would be
helpful... 8^)  Thanks in advance for taking the time.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 15:08:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA22694;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:06:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:06:02 -0800
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: <3650725A.32623B6C css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:43:38 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
References: <005801be1158$25048500$a6b4bfa8 default>
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 PAA22511
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wf91k.0.SY5.O_AKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24630
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> Cool!
> http://www.geegraphite.com/wjframes.htm

I agree!  Unfortunately the EPA considers the slurry byproduct a HazMat.  Here
is another I could never understand: sawdust.  Smartest idea I've seen that
takes both issues into consideration is a company that water cuts marine grade
plywood for boat frames.  Lemonade from lemons!


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 15:24:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29708;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:22:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:22:12 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36505FBB.F2E9B289 css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:24:11 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Chiral Vacuum
References: <l03130300b273997a4344 [12.72.131.165]>
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 PAA29650
Resent-Message-ID: <"klpQZ.0.0G7.ZEBKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24631
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> So there seems to be this common thread where
> it takes a while to get things 'spun up' or something. 

.....accumulated.  8^)


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 15:40:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03809;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:38:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:38:30 -0800
Message-ID: <001001be11b9$a3b199e0$a7b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:34:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"h0dGL2.0.Kx.sTBKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24632
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting

John Steck wrote:


>Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>> Cool!
>> http://www.geegraphite.com/wjframes.htm
>
>I agree!  Unfortunately the EPA considers the slurry byproduct a HazMat.
Here
>is another I could never understand: sawdust.  Smartest idea I've seen that
>takes both issues into consideration is a company that water cuts marine
grade
>plywood for boat frames.  Lemonade from lemons!

Why not? Actually my interest is in whether or not that 2500 ft/second (Mach
2.5) water jet is producing any O/U.

That's got to be at least an order of magnitude above anything a vortex
microcavitation bubble
collapse could do.

Regards,  Frederick
>
>
>--
>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
>    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith
>    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of
>    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied.
>    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 16:33:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA04124;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b276302bacde [208.228.222.165]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:51:12 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id QAA04075
Resent-Message-ID: <"b_XDJ1.0.L01.vCCKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24633
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:03 AM 11/15/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>I have not noticed a response to my suggstion of David Hudson's
>monatomic superconducting phase collapse transmutation from critical
>magnetic field over saturation as a source of unexpected elements and
>nuclear particles.

Insufficient information has been provided for comment. With only this
limited amount of information it just sounds like a bunch of undefined or
improperly used buzz words.  If you flesh it out for us some might be
willing to comment.

>Nor have I noticed a response about the idea of the
>hydrogen dissociation - recombination cycle as a excess energy source.

Try the archives.  Lots has been said on this.  Here's an example, an
amateurish prior vortex post of mine faniced up with a title:

                     THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS

                       Horace Heffner  12/30/1996

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS

The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion
(AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+,
which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the
surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be
greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a
sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs.  This is an idea
that leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a
basis for the design of over unity devices.  If correct, the AEH also
explains various previously observed results.

This hypothesis is another expression among many of the idea that the
excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or
transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy
(ZPE) sea.  This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion
does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing
source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE.  It is an assumption
of this hypothesis that ZP energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and
is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. There have
been various publications referencing ZPE, especially by Dr. H. E. Puthoff
[1 - 6]

Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be
deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution.  These
deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due
to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields.  The
deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into
potential energy, and back.  With the exception of the occasional resulting
photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the
gas laws and thermodynamics work so well.  It is true that collision and
pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but
differ from purly field generated deformations in that the
collision/deformation caused fields (or field distortions) are highly
localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field
distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy
density.

HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE?

John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of
vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a
light bulb to boil all the seas.  The problem is designing a mechanism to
effectively extract this energy.  The energy available is dependent upon
the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the
Casimir Effect, etc.  The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount
of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction
repeat rate per volume achievable.  It does appear the two goals, high
repeat rate, and high confinement, typically oppose each other.

The ZP energy fills every vacuum.  If there is not a cutoff frequency, that
energy is infinite.  Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank
frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the
order of 10^94 g/cm^3.  Multiply by c^2 and you have an enormous energy
density - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself
from the ZPE sea if tapped.

The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by:

rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw
          = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3

Rearranging we have:

rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3

rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3


Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff
frequency B:

f(B) = K/4 B^4

This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not
constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff
frequency being tapped.  The big problem is figuring out how to tap this
energy.  If a method of tapping ZPE energy is found, conservation of energy
is not violated, the second law of thermodynnamics is violated, as the
replacement energy ultimately flows from elsewhere in the universe.

Of interest is that most of the ZP energy is in the top frequencies of the
ZP spectrum tapped.  The bottom 98 percent of the frequency distribution
tapped contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy.  The top two percent
contains about 8 percent of the energy.  This implies it is best to utilize
the smallest possible wavelengths in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and
therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures.  This leaves
atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results.

Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get:

f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4

Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1
angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so:

f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4

f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3

f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3

If only the top 2 percent of the accessible ZPE frequency band is utilized,
we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3.

Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses.
Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable
to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary
cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second
to replenish the cm^3.  Given a collection of atomic sized devices located
in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as
the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the
higher ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension micro structure volume
could resupply the volume initially, with the minor resulting deficit at
all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe.  This
conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles
per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules
residing in the imaginary cm^3.  If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE
energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec.,
or 10,000 W/cm^3.  If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per
cycle, and we could  extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per
cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3.

However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum,
replenishment might be able to happen from the locality as fast as 10^-20
second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense.  Such
a local replenishment would depend upon the existance of a mechanism for
the energy of higher ZPE frequencies being converted to and replenishing
the frequency band being tapped.  The potential energy release is unlimited
from any reasonable standpoint.  The real limitations are event density and
event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend
upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium.

This is not to say that finding a method of extracting any net energy is
easy.  Though the ZPE sea abounds, it is very difficult to extract the
energy from it.  This is possibly the main value to the AE concept.  If
there is any truth to the idea that ZPE provides the support for orbitals,
then ZPE does interact with our environment in a big way continuously.
Massive energy exchanges occur in springs, sonic devices, etc., simply from
orbital deformation. Enormous forces can be involved and enormous energies,
even in the compression and expansion of relatively cold systems, like
metal lattices.  The intended method of extracting energy from the massive
ZPE sea is to cause orbital expansion to occur in a confined space, thus
creating extreme orbital deformation without supplying the deforming energy
to the process.  This is like manufacturing watch springs that are already
wound.

A PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE

1)  An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice.  This can be
accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis.

2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially
imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice.

3)  The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band.
If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond
and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from
a conduction band.  The net result is an electron from the locality is
taken up by the ion.

4)  An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion.

5)  As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a
photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released -
heating the local environment.

6)  As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear
dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all
directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not
accommodate the size of the de-ionized product.  Further expansion of the
de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on
the lattice.  The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived
solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing.  However, unlike a
collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied.  The energy
is supplied from the ZPE sea.



ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES

Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not
with the efficiency of a metal lattice.  A conducting liquid, like mercury,
would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE
would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting
force of a molecular bond.  The force resisting the AE would still be
exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced
per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE
resisting force.

Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in
a gas.  The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring
the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from
the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital.  A negative balance in
ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He)  must be overcome using the kinetic
energy of the collision.

Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low
energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate.  Here again, the
AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being
accelerated upon its rebound from the plate.


EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS

1)  Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas).
This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via
RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement.

2)  The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron
from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion.  In the event one of the
other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is
required to strip the electron, and the post collision noble gas atom may
still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital
forms during the collision.

3)  An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of
the ion.  The expansion, fueled by ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms
in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses.

4)  As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one
or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn
ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment.

5)  The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied
to their shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via
the normal elastic collision mechanism.

6)  Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released,
gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially.

The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+
orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional
kinetic energy to both.


WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN?

The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the
alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading.  I suggest that in the initial
loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is, as suggested by others, alternately
in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form.  It is primarily ionically
bound to the lattice, especially when in motion.  An H atom almost fits
inside a tetrahedral lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals
between cells.  In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H
molecules, and in such a state, diffusion between cells requires
displacement of some H molecules, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked,
and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or
its tunneling out of the way.  Some degree of H confinement upon the
reconversion from an H+ to H would occur, thus some small AE excess energy
might be produced in beta phase.   In the gamma phase, H loading would be
to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2
molecules in the tetrahedral sites and in the face holes. In looking at the
geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules, it appears such a formation is
possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 2 percent.  This
would, however, imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would
dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation,
or "expansion".

Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of
the Ni lattice:

H atomic radius:     .79 �
H covalent radius    .32 �
H2 bond length       .7414 �

Ni atomic radius    1.62 �
Ni covalent radius  1.15 �
Ni bond length      2.4916 �

>From this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius
0.2885 � and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius
0.6118 �. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the
tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole.  In fact, the H2
atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond
length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) = .063 �.  This is an increase in bond length of
about 2.5 percent.  Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the
tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat,
to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms
can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a tri-jawed anvil - popping the
H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces.
Such an expansion is at least inertially constrained, thus AE energy could
result.  Note that each half of the H2 "dumbbell" resides in a different
tetrahedral space.  These spaces can act as pistons, i.e the vacuum will
accumulate zero point energy.  This energy may assist the cracking of the
H2 by the anvil by exerting a Casimir force on the expanding H orbital
surface.  Further, when the orbitals of the expanding H and the boundary
metal atoms make contact, a kind of orbital "blow through" may occur,
creating free electrons that further heat the lattice.  The H nucleus would
be accelerated in the direction of the center of its tetrahedral site by
the expanding H orbital.  This momentum could carry the H nucleus on into
the next tetrahedral site, thus ZPE may help facilitate the H diffusion.
Sufficient energy might momentarily create an H "supermolecule," two H
nuclei orbited by two electrons.   Such events would increase the
likelihood of fusion, if only a small amount.  Maximizing the ZPE
extraction via these means would mean loading the lattice at a (or
eventually heating it to a) temperature near the melting point of the Ni in
order to permit maximum occupation of the triangular face holes by H2
atoms.  Similar arguments apply to the Pd-D system.

The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a
mechanism:

Elem.   Bond   Covalent Atomic  Face Hole   Tetrahedral
        Length  Radius  Radius  Radius      Space Radius
         (A)      (A)    (A)     (A)           (A)
Ge      2.4498   1.22   1.52    0.1944        0.5123
Pt      2.7460   1.30   1.83    0.2854        0.6417
Ni      2.4916   1.15   1.62    0.2885        0.6118
Cu      2.5560   1.17   1.57    0.3057        0.6373
Pd      2.7511   1.28   1.79    0.3083        0.6653
Au      2.8841   1.34   1.79    0.3251        0.6993
Ag      2.8894   1.34   1.75    0.3282        0.7031
Al      2.8630   1.25   1.82    0.4030        0.7744
Ce      3.6500   1.65   2.70    0.4573        0.9309
Yb      3.8800   1.74   2.40    0.5001        1.0035
Ca      3.9470   1.74   2.23    0.5388        1.0509
Pb      3.5003   1.47   1.81    0.5509        1.0051
Sr      4.3020   1.91   2.45    0.5738        1.1319

Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially
that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the
suggested anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an
approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing
the Schroedinger Equation, is required.  It is especially noteworthy that
Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard
temperatures.  The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a
face hole and also being capable of anvil pressure on the bond appear to be
Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required.  Also, the less
pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt
and Cu.  Note also that above Al in the table, the H atom, having a radius
of 0.79 �, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without
orbital deformation.  This would greatly diminish the free energy
generating potential.

The AEH  model also may explain why various discharge tubes, especially
those containing H2 or He, appear to produce excess energy.   The ions are
injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic
expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized
shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the
impinging and reflecting particles at the surface.  The source of the AE
energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some
degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE
surface effect expansion.

The AEH may also explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce
excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation
bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into
the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand,
undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy, to the collapsing
pressure wall.

The AEH may also explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing
water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially
create AE energy.

Here are some ionization potentials of interest:

H   13.598
C   11.260
CO  14.014
CO2 13.773

Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between
H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2.  Note that the AE
reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the
production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the
second O from the CO2.  Two things are bothersome about this concept
though.  One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed
in chemistry long ago.  Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a
noble gas are used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the
kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the
probability of such a bond.  The main difficulty, though, is that the
shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a
repulsive force.  AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction.
Perhaps one difficulty answers the other.  In any event, He++ would make a
more logical AE generator than H+ in this application.  The He would act as
an energy booster, and thereby as a kind of catalyst, in cracking the H2O
and CO2 bonds.  Such a process may work best at very low voltages and high
frequencies, especially in a manner similar to that suggested by Puharich
(Ref. 8) for cracking water.  His method adapted to a steam/CO2
environment, catalyzed by He, could assist in the production of water gas.
Such a gas could be used, within a sealed glass envelope containing both
discharges, to feed oscillations (due to operation in the negative
resistance range) of a higher voltage arc or electric discharge, to produce
electrical energy directly, without mechanical devices.


SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA?

This model results in some concrete design suggestions:

1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as
efficiently as possible.

2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably
conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure.

3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium.

4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably
extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas
before repeating the cycle.


SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS

1)  Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium
for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly.  Mercury also
conducts electricity well.  Other metals could be used at higher
temperatures; however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be
good as it would increase the power demand.  The increased power would have
to be utilized to result in more ionizations.  The simplest possible test
device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 or He with a point anode at
the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency
high voltage pulsed DC current.  An improvement might be to use two anode
electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge
between the anodes to do the ionization.

2)  Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy
of the gas.  An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very
good anode.

3)  It may be possible to use water as a cathode.  The atomic expansion may
assist in boiling the water at the surface.  The water could provide it's
own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode.  It might be
good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination.  An electrolyte
would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity.

4)  Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done
under extreme pressure.  Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move
pistons.  Additional process stages could be added for recombination and
heat recovery.  Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would
come from the ZPE sea.

5)  As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited
mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over
unity results.

6)  The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under
water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods
altogether.  This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam)
into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and
H2 in the arc.  The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in
reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling
process.  This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as
the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or
CO2, and will not bond with it.


REFERENCES

1.  H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p. 52 (28
July 1990).

2.  H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266
(1987).

3.  D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the
Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 48, p. 1562 (1993).

4.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum:  Implications for Energy
Research," Spec. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990).

5.  Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70,
August 1985

6.  Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?",
American Scientist, March-April 1980, p. 154

7.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy
Research",  Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.
247-257, 1990.

8.  US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER
MOLECULES," Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and
Schweitzer

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 16:33:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29042;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:31:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:31:31 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <36505EC5.E1067E24 css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:20:05 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Chiral Vacuum
References: <3.0.32.19981114130958.00b8be50 cnct.com>
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 QAA28877
Resent-Message-ID: <"6-hUG.0.e57.YFCKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24634
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> The following is a quote from the Cartan website...
> >>With all the huzzah about the expanding universe there is an implicit notion
> >>that there is a center of symmetry about which the expansion
> >>takes place. Homogeneity, isotropy are cornerstones of the cosmological
> >>principle, which under closer scrutiny appears to have
> >>defects. Could there be another defect in that the Universe does not have a
> >>center of symmetry?

Ross Tessien posted some interesting perspectives on the dynamics not too long
ago.  With respect to his available time, you may want to go back and scan the
archive.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 17:20:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12432;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:16:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:16:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199811170116.TAA13671 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:14:49 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Please Reconsider Mitch!
Resent-Message-ID: <"J83lv2.0.A23.vvCKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24635
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> ***{Not according to the charter, and not according to Bill Beaty. It's his
>> list, not yours, and so the matter is settled, and it's time to move on.
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Not quite.

***{What's the matter, Bill, are you tired of intervening to adjudicate
kindergarten squabbles? :-) If so, I sympathize. If, as I suspect, the
above comment indicates that you are considering changing the charter, then
I must say that I think that is an excellent idea! While it is clear, both
from your words and from a reading of the present charter, that there are
no formal limitations on subject matter in this group, it is also clear (a)
that the present charter is too wordy, and (b) that something needs to be
added to prevent recurring tempests such as the one just concluded. To that
end, I would suggest that the following comments be added:

(1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided that
topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.

(2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that others
muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.

(3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over or
delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which are
not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting behavior
in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out of order.

I make these suggestions for one reason only: because you have frequently
indicated your preference for a hands off approach to list management, and
have practiced as you have preached. Perhaps the implementation of these
ideas, or something similar, will make that goal a bit easier to achieve.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 16 17:40:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22389;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:38:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:38:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3650D495.3D earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:42:45 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact  11.16.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_qv_H.0.fT5.CEDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24636
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.13.98
  Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:20 -0400 (EDT)
  From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

     Oops!  In the note of 11/13/98, I stated the equation for my model 
     incorectly the first time I did it.  I later used the correct
form.  
     Specifically, in my model:
     
     Excess Heat (W) = Transferred Heat (X) * Kc * (k2-k1)
     
     My apologies.
     
 Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's...and my mistakes too!}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 17:48:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26108;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:45:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:45:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981116174534.00a40188 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: Tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:45:37 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Gravity Theory Survives
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"j4rD32.0.qN6.5LDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24637
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:39 AM 11/16/98 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Your remarks are very thought-provoking.
>Regarding the Milgrom Bekenstein equation and
>"The expansion of aether follows a 1/R^2 profile. ..."
>you say "the JPL findings regarding the spacecraft don't
>necessarily make sense according to the above models,"
>Could you present the Milgrom Bekenstein equation  here
>and connect it mathematically with the "1/R^2 profile"?
>How are the JPL findings not consistent with the
>the Milgrom Bekenstein equation?
>
>Jack Smith

Source, Galactic Dynamics, Binney and Tremaine, page 636, chapter 10 on
Dark Matter:
quote:  

"An alternative proposal (Milgrom 1983; Bekenstein and Milgrom 1984) is
that Newton's law of gravitation fails when the potential gradient is small
rather than when the distance is large.  Thus, Poisson's equation is
modified to


  Del((|Del(phi)| / a_o) * Del phi) = 4 pi G rho

where a_o is a universal constant.  This modification can be shown to arise
in a fairly natural way from a non=relativistic Lagrangian formulation.
Milgromfinds that with an appropriate value of a_o (~8E-8h^-2cm s^-2) he
does not require dark matter in any systems, either the solar neighborhood,
galactic halos, clusters and groups of galaxies, or the Virgo supercluster.
 At the present time there is no satisfactory cosmological theory
consistent with the Milgrom-Bekenstein modification."

In chapter 10, Binney and Tremaine list numerous places where the dark
matter problem arises.  They also list several equations other's have used
to explain away the dark matter problem.  But, the Milgrom Bekenstein
equation is the only one which does so at all cosmological distances and
situations.  

As far as the satellite orbital variances are concerned, if their
"constant" is actually a variable, then the above equation may be able to
fit to the JPL satellite data and explain the acceleration.  This would be
the case if the anomalous acceleration is found only in satellites that are
changing radii from smaller to larger radii for example, ie Voyager.

But, for satellites that are in circular orbits, then there cannot be any
anomalous acceleration or else you wind up with the necessity of being able
to notice that the planets are also changing their radii with time, and
this doesn't happen.

If aether flow is involved, then the flow velocity at a given radius will
always be the same.  So a stable orbital period should be able to be
established.  However, the periods of rotation of the planets would then
turn up to be a function of radius from the sun.  And to my knowledge, this
isn't the case.

This only leaves the possibility that objects of different size gravitate
differently (which is something I expect, just like the Casimir effect is
greater as the separation distance is changed, the number of waves that a
gravitating object can filter out should change with numbers of particles
to do the filtering with.  The geometry gets complicated due to density as
well as number considerations, but the net is that it is reasonable for a
smaller object to gravitate better than a larger object.  

The other solution would be that the anomalous acceleration is due to the
heat emission.  

For me, I must factor in the additional fact that individual particles
gravitate in yet a different manner.  The particles of the solar wind are
being accelerated away from the sun (compared to what we expect from
Newtonian gravitation) as they head out of the solar system.  Their
deceleration follows a 1/R^0.7 profile as I recall.  Look up work by Donald
Reames on the net, search NASA, Reames, "SEP", "CME" and you will get to
his web pages as well as others.

Later, Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 17:51:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27905;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:48:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:48:39 -0800
Message-ID: <3650D703.5D65 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:53:07 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Carr: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.16.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RTCod1.0.np6.sNDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24638
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 11.4.98
       Date: 16 Nov 1998 16:06:20 GMT
       From: jac ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
 Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion
 References:  1

rmforall earthlink.net writes:
>Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.2.98
>  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>

 ... feel free to repost to the vortex list ...

>For example, you write Bloch wave functions for the
>separation coordinate of a bound system.  I don't know
>how you can do that.  

 He can do it the same way you do it for any bound system. 

>Clearly you have not shown those
>wave functions to be eigenfunctions of the actual
>physical system under consideration.  The binding
>energy forces a functional form at great distance from
>the well to be the familiar exponential decay -- not
>a Bloch function.

 It can be consistent with one, but the key word here is 
 "consistent".  The bound state admits both increasing and 
 decreasing exponentials with the former excluded by the 
 boundary conditions, but a periodic spacing allows both. 

 The problem is that the binding energy sets the scale of 
 the fall-off, and the atomic size sets the scale of the 
 spacing and the consequent tunneling, so the amplitude 
 will be very tiny.  The question about eigenfunctions is 
 then an important one, since even tiny shifts in the 
 position of the nucleus will have large effects.  The 
 relevant scales are not comparable as they are for a 
 lattice and electrons. 

>To make a Born-Oppenheimer separation and then use that
>as a justification for keeping other interactions out
>of the problem is, I would say, very circular reasoning.

 Quite so.  The interactions are a given.

>Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
>justify saying that everything has to remain in its
>ground state because it's at T=0.  

 More importantly, you know there is motion at T=0, and 
 that must be included in the calculation above when 
 looking at the severly mixed scales of this problem.
-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac scri.fsu.edu>     | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:03:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31836;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:56:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:56:42 -0800
Message-ID: <3650DFA2.4828 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:29:54 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Let's Push for Cold Fusion Budget!! [Fwd: American Physical Society: Federal Budget Alert]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------64356929447"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kuXu22.0.Ln7.PVDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24639
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.

--------------64356929447
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

November 17, 1998

Vortex members,

This notice put out by APS is our prime opportunity to make the case for
budgeting for Cold Fusion studies and development. Or we could continue
to just vent (pass gas?) on the keyboard.

-AK-

--------------64356929447
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <messages aps.org>
Received: from hq.aps.org (hq.aps.org [149.28.112.5])
	by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with SMTP id PAA03282; 
	for <aki ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:02:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by hq.aps.org (8.6.12/1.35)
	id WAA16245; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:50:53 GMT
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:50:53 GMT
Message-Id: <199811162250.WAA16245 hq.aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com
From: opa aps.org
Reply-To: opa aps.org
Subject: American Physical Society: Federal Budget Alert


To: Members of the American Physical Society
From: Andy Sessler, APS President

The Clinton Administration has reached the critical stage in
formulating the budget for Fiscal Year 2000.  THE STARTING
POINT IS A $28 BILLION CUT in discretionary spending to cover
the shortfalls created by the recently passed Omnibus
Appropriations Bill.

Federal agencies have now filed their requests with the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Administration is about to assign
priorities that will determine how the requests will be handled.
The budget that the Administration submits to Congress next
February will reflect the decisions made during the next two weeks.
WHETHER SCIENCE IS ASSIGNED A PRIORITY STATUS DEPENDS UPON WHETHER
INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS CONTACT THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!

To make your case, please send your letter to:

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Please send copies to:

The Honorable Jacob Lew
Director, Office of Management and Budget
252 Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania, NW
Washington, DC 20503

The Honorable Gene B. Sperling
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable Neal F. Lane
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
424 Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20503

In preparing your letter, I would suggest that you emphasize the
need for a balanced scientific portfolio, a position that the
President staked out in his address to the AAAS last February and
for which he should be complimented.  You might also point out
that investment in science has been a bipartisan initiative and
offers Congress and the White House an unusual opportunity for
establishing common ground, a message that voters sent their
elected officials on November 3.  Finally, you might note that
investment in peer reviewed science is consistent with the theme
of shared prosperity: it is entrepreneurial, a prime driver of
the American economy and a key to creating the jobs of the future.

Please keep your communication brief; a letter should not exceed
three paragraphs.  For additional information send a return e-mail.
It will be forwarded to Michael Lubell (Director of Public Affairs)
and Francis Slakey (Associate Director of Public Affairs) in the
APS Washington Office [(202)-662-8700].

SOME HISTORY

Just three years ago, federal science funding was in serious decline
and fewer then a half dozen Members of Congress gave it any attention.
Under the guidance of APS Past-President D. Allan Bromley, reversing
this trend became a priority of the APS.  The activities of the staff
of the APS Washington Office, APS members, and numerous scientific
societies have now produced a remarkable turnaround in the priority of
science in Congress. 

For the second year in a row, the science budget has increased above
inflation.  This year, President Clinton and key members of the House
and Senate identified science as a national priority.  In October, the
Senate passed the Federal Research Investment Act calling for a
doubling of the science budget over the next twelve years.  (The clock
ran out in the House, and the bill will be resubmitted next year.)
Rep. Vern Ehlers, an APS fellow, released a new science policy for the
nation.  And this November, Rush Holt, also an APS member, won election
to the House of Representatives. 

That is truly an astounding turn of events.  However, there is still
more to achieve.  I would like to see the Administration and the
Congressional leadership identify science as a priority for next
year.  I would like to see the Federal Research Investment Act pass in
the House and again in the Senate and then be signed into law.  I would
like a third year of increases in the science budget.  And I would like
the APS to expand its legislative goals to include issues in arms control
and climate change, consistent with the recommendations of the APS
Council.

In order to achieve these goals, we need even broader participation of
the APS membership. Currently, 1,000 APS members have volunteered to be
part of the Physics and Government Network (PGNet).  They are contacted
by the APS Washington Office when, and only when, their member of
Congress is critical to moving some science-related legislation.  I hope
you will join this network if you are not yet a member.  If you would like
to join, please send a return message.

FACTS AND FIGURES

(1) On October 8, the National Research Investment Act passed in the
Senate with the bipartisan co-sponsorships of 35 Senators.  The Act has
as its purpose,"To invest in the future of the United States by doubling
the amount authorized for civilian basic scientific, medical, and
pre-competitive engineering research over the next twelve years."  This
clearly indicates that the Senate regards science as a priority investment.
Sen. Domenici, chair of the Budget Committee, specifically stated that
science will be a priority in his Committee's upcoming deliberations.

(2) A statement similar to this bill has been endorsed by the presidents
of 110 professional societies, estimated to represent more than 3.5 million
scientists, engineers and mathematicians.  This "Unified Statement" was
released on October 22, 1997.
(http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/decade.html)

(3) Today, more than 70% of all US industrial patent applications rely on
publicly supported research, according to a recent survey conducted by
CHI Research.  The cause is clear: market pressures have forced American
industry to shorten its research time horizons and to adopted risk-averse
R&D strategies.  The result is that almost all long-term, high-risk
research is now performed by universities and national laboratories, where
the federal government is the prime investor.

(4) Economic analyses show that since the end of World War II, technology
has accounted for more than half of all economic growth in the US.  Today,
increased productivity, driven by technological innovation, receives much
of the credit for sustaining the current expansion, which is characterized
by low inflation and low unemployment.  Briefly, federal investment in
research increases economic growth and keeps the nation within a balanced
budget.

(5) Science is the underpinning of technological progress.  Indeed, basic
research, according to economists such as Stanford's Michael Boskin and
the Pennsylvania's Edwin Mansfield, provide extraordinary social returns
on the federal investment.  Estimates on return run between 20% and 60%.


--------------64356929447--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:20:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09129;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:19:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:19:09 -0800
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: <3650BF3F.913CEE28 css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:11:43 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
References: <001001be11b9$a3b199e0$a7b4bfa8 default>
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 SAA09037
Resent-Message-ID: <"f2X3P3.0.YE2.TqDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24641
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> Actually my interest is in whether or not that 2500 ft/second (Mach
> 2.5) water jet is producing any O/U.

Might not be a bad place to start looking for LW's negative viscosity, but not
sure how would measure pin/pout.  The pout measurement would definitely have to
be non-contact!  My gut says no, however.  A rotational element is needed.

I wonder how they stop the nozzle from freezing from the TD pinch......


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:20:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08905;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:18:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:18:34 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2766a0f9ef3 [208.228.222.157]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:56:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: New list for experiment discussion only
Resent-Message-ID: <"a0wwW3.0.3B2.wpDKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24640
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:13 PM 11/16/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>At 5:11 PM 11/13/98, Scott Little wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>I would like to
>>>form a new list for experiments only. The idea is to have a forum for rapid
>>>exchange/discussion of experimental data without having to wade through 20+
>>>off-topic messages every day day.  Considering the frequency of experiment
>>>reports/comments now on Vortex, I fully expect the new list to go for days
>>>at a time with NO messages being posted to it.
>>
>>
>>The more I think about this the better the idea sounds.  I would be willing
>>to contribute some cash and/or some time to this, if needed for setting it
>>up.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Horace Heffner
>
>***{SOHO is an experiment, Horace, and so are the data collection efforts
>of astronomers, both amateur and professional,
[snip]

The implied idea is for members to exchange their *own* experimental data
and techniques, and possibly supplier information. The discussion would be
regarding *member's* experiments.  Observations and experiments are not
necessarily the same thing.  I assume the topics for discussion would be
futher refined by subscribers after formation of the list.  As Scott says,
this list would have not much information flowing.  There would still need
to be a list or lists similar to vortex for brainstorming, theory, and open
discussion.

This is my reading of what Scott is saying, so he should speak for himself,
but I suspect we are not on too distant wavelengths.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:40:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16158;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:36:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:36:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3650DB23.360B earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:10:43 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory  11.16.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gR83w3.0.My3.w4EKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24643
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 11.15.98
  Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:54:43 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

> Can we agree on any part of the following?
> 1. A few neutrons are emitted which need to be explained but the amount
> is too small to help explain the claimed energy.
> 2. While the Takashasi results may not support the idea of
> multi-deuterium reactions, this fact does not eliminate the idea.  Such
> reactions may be possible and may play a role.
> 3. Simple d+d=He reactions are unlikely to be the source of heat.  The
> more likely possibility is alpha emission.
> 4. The type of nuclear reaction producing the excess energy may be
> sensitive to the chemical environment.  Hence, we may see similar
> effects but from a different cause.
> 5. Detection of nuclear emission or products of any type is important to
> understanding the effect and needs to be coupled to heat production.
> However, these two measurements can not be made separately to give any
> understanding of energy production.
> 6. The claims for excess energy production are sufficiently supported
> that time and money should be devoted to their further study.  An answer
> to this question is important and will influence our further dialogue.

Certainly we can agree on much of this.  You, at least, are now
acknowledging the merits of at least some of what the skeptics have been
saying for nine long years.  Taking this point by point:

1) I agree that too few neutrons (by something like a factor of 10^13)
are emitted to tell us anything about the presumed process other than
the clear fact that there can be no intermediate state for the system
with nuclear excitation energies above the neutron binding energy, i.e.
everything in the system stays at or near its nuclear ground state.  Now
what you may find distressing is just how much can be ruled out by this
one simple observation, to which you have now agreed.

2) Takahashi's idea has no merit and is contrary to the known patterns
of behavior for virtually every similar physical system ever
investigated. One of the pillars of quantum reaction theory is "Fermi's
Golden Rule", which carries right up front a phase-space factor.  To get
two nuclei to interact via the strong interaction requires that their
separations be comparable to the range of said interaction.  That is to
say they have to get together.  While I will leave you some wiggle room
for setting just how close is close enough, I don't think I can go along
with the notion that the interaction probability goes up rather than
down as more bodies get involved.

3) I agree entirely!

4) I would say that the nuclear process must be sensitive to the
chemical environment to a remarkable degree  -- nothing like what has
ever been observed.

5)Certainly nuclear observations are important.  That has been my main
message.

6)So now we come to what, for you, is the key question.  Do I agree that
results in hand for CANR investigations justify the expenditure of
further money and resources?  If by that you mean an endless repetition
of calorimetric studies which appear to have no goal but to pick through
an assortment of palladium cathodes in hopes of finding one that works,
I don't see that as having any value.  I wouldn't willingly pay for such
research.  As I have been noting, far too many of these investigations
have yielded only marginal results.  I have not heard from you, or
anyone, a clearly stated plan for future investigations that has promise
for improving on the past efforts.  My sense is that unless someone has
a better approach in mind the funds would be better spent elsewhere.


> > I know about thin windows and vacuum leaks from experience.  However, I
> > believe there is even some mention of leaks in the paper.  One of the
> > difficulties with these measurements is that elevated temperatures are
> > somewhat incompatible with the maintenance of tight vacuum seals.
>
> Anyone working with vacuum has experience with leaks.  Therefore leaks
> are looked for and, when found, are fixed. This is a trivial process
> using modern equipment. Reifenschweiler went through this process.  To
> suggest that he would leave a leak unfixed is insulting.  Just because
> you or I have seen leaks does not mean that every measurement made by
> someone else is compromised by leaks.  Reifenschweiler has demonstrated
> to me at least that he is a careful experimenter who would take the time
> to fix a leak.

It is important to note that the Reifenschweiler experiment was actually
conducted many years (like 30) before it was reported.  I was always
a careful experimenter and I sometimes had leaks in my thin foils. 
Whether I stopped to fix said leak depended on whether I considered it
significant to the operation of the experiment.  What Reifenschweiler
thought about his experiment must have changed after the fact, else why
the long delay in publication?  Unless this result is replicated I don't
see that there is much to be gained by debating the experimental
details.  My understanding is that attempts at replication were being
considered some years back, but I have not heard anything further.  Does
that tell us that the replication attempt has failed?

> > Ask your friendly, neighborhood Varian salesman for information on how
> > their helium leak detectors operate.  I am not calling on anything
> > trivial, nor am I desperate.  You just can't deal with the issues I
> > raise.
>
> If I understand your argument, you propose that helium leaks from the
> air through the oil, travels upstream in the flowing gas, and enters the
> flask where it is counted as helium produced by electrolytic action. In
> addition, this process does not work when excess heat is not being
> detected, a conclusion which is required to explained the 7 cells in
> which Miles sees neither helium nor heat. When your process does work,
> it gives results which are consistent with the measured excess energy.
> To add to the unusual nature of this explanation, it does the same thing
> in an entirely different apparatus set up by Bush and gives the same
> consistent results. Is my understanding correct?

I see no problem with having helium leak through bubbling oil to travel
"upstream" in a low-velocity gas stream.  So then we come to the
questions relating to adequate controls and supposed correlations to
excess heat. This is one of those experiments that may well have
benefited from the use of a double-blind protocol -- something not done
as I understand it. As for the controls, certainly in the initial series
of measurements they were inadequate.  In one of your reviews, I
believe, the supposed correlation between excess heat and helium is
plotted.  At first glance, I was not impressed.  I'll have to look at
that more carefully and get back to you on that point.

> > > Anyone with an imagination or any good lawyer can come up with an
> > > explanation for anything. All experimental results are faulty.  Saying
> > > this means nothing. When the phenomenon is subtle, the results are
> > > easily ignored.  The question is, "Should a responsible scientist reject
> > > such claims or should he explore the subtle features with the
> > > expectation of finding a new understanding"? Disappointment later is
> > > better than unwarranted rejection earlier.  If the debate boils down to
> > > whether Dick's explanations are more plausible than mine, then we will
> > > get nowhere.
> >
> > There are two potential sins to be considered here.  I agree that it is
> > a mistake to be to quick to reject claims relating to newly observed
> > phenomena.  It is, however, also a mistake to expend great amounts of
> > time and resources chasing after something imaginary.  What is required
> > of us, I should think, is to exercise sound, proper, rational,
> > scientific judgement for the evaluation of all results in order to best
> > direct our future investigations toward realistic goals.  I have not
> > been saying that CANR investigations should not be undertaken.  I have
> > just been saying that calorimetry alone is not getting us anywhere.
>
> Yes, I agree.  However, one needs to believe the heat claims are real to
> justify setting up the expensive experiments to detect the proposed
> nuclear products. In addition, we need to understand how to produce the
> excess energy so that time is not wasted, as has been done in the past,
> looking at cells which are not active.
>
> The idea of what is imaginary after applying sound judgement is the
> issue. We all think we apply sound judgement.  Some people's judgement
> is so sound that good ideas are rejected, only later to be taken up and
> proven by people with less sound judgement. I would rather accept an
> idea that later is shown to be false than reject an idea that later
> turns out to be true. Dick seems to take the opposite approach.

I would not say that I am taking the opposite approach. You and I both
agree that an idea that is shown to be false should be rejected.  What
I have been pointing out is that several CANR claims have, in fact,
been shown to be false, but the advocates typically will not reject
these data.  I now see that you reject the hypothesis that the excess
heat is produced by cold fusion.  That certainly is a step forward.
I would further suggest that the Miley claims for massive nuclear
transmutations should be rejected.  Will you join me on that point?
I suggest that the Mills notion of shrinking atoms should be rejected.
I suggest that the Yamaguchi claims for helium production should be
rejected.

Still it is not entirely a matter of thumbs up or down on each
experiment. One problem we must note is this ongoing failure to
replicate in detail any result.  That, in part, may explain the failure
for these investigations to progress in an orderly way.  So when I note
significant differences, perhaps indicative of systematic error, you can
ascribe the differences to something in the chemical environment. 
Unless we can define that environment sufficiently well to reduce the
variability of outcome, it remains difficult or impossible to establish
any facts regarding either the required environment or the supposed
nuclear process.

> > > I did not say each was separately averaged over a minute.  The voltage
> > > and current are measured simultaneously, i.e. within 0.01 sec. In my
> > > present set up, a reading is taken every 0.1 sec and about 500 such
> > > readings are averaged. The product is the average power during this
> > > interval. This same procedure is used during calibration.  Different
> > > time intervals have been explored and there is very little difference
> > > except more points lower the random variations somewhat.
> >
> > I still don't see from you a clear statement as to what is being
> > averaged?  My point is that you don't "read" power.  You have to
> > calculate it.  So I don't like that phrase: "a reading is taken every
> > 0.1 sec and about 500 such readings are averaged."  If you are averaging
> > calculated power, say it that way.  While on the subject, have you
> > explored variations in the timing between a voltage measurement and
> > a current measurement within the entire group of measurements as well
> > as just changes to the total logging rate?
>
> I take measurements of current and voltage which are averaged over many
> points. The current reading is taken immediately after the voltage
> reading.  The average is multiplied to obtain the power.  If the signals
> were very noisy, the point Dick raises would have an effect.  However,
> the amount of noise is not large compared to the signal, as I have
> indicated.  In addition, the same data acquisition is used during
> calibration as during the study.  For an effect to occur, the amount of
> noise would have to increase substantially during the run.  This does
> not happen.

Here is a concrete criticism of your chosen experimental protocol.  I am
suggesting that the time variation in the signals for your measurements
should be of some concern to you because they are "noisey".  Now
averaging noisey signals may make them look nicer without actually doing
anything to reduce the effects of that noise.  As I noted the power
input is the product of the instantaneous voltage and the instantaneous
current.  It is NOT the product of the averages as you indicate.  For
electrolysis, the power input is noisey because the effective resistance
of the cell fluctuates.  The calorimeter cannot, in fact, track the
power input, so there is a potential source of error hiding in the time
dependence of the power input.  You, however, note that the calorimeter
is calibrated repeatedly using a resistive load in order to insure that
no systematic error is made.  Now what is the time dependence of the
power input for a resistive load?  Does it in any way mimic the behavior
of an electrochemical cell?  Let me suggest that your protocol does
not rule out errors deriving from the noisey character of the power
input.

> > Then you agree with me that "temperature" is not, in itself, a
> > controlling parameter for the determination of the outcome of a nuclear
> > reaction. That's all I meant when I suggested that fusion is fusion
> > regardless of the temperature.  It's the actual chemical environment
> > that must account for dramatic differences in reaction processes if your
> > notions are to prevail.
>
> Yes, we agree.
>
> > > This is the conventional model which does not work. I agree, the process
> > > can not involve d+d=4He as an isolated reaction.
> > >
> > > I think we are limited to four possibilities at the present time:
> > > 1. The process occurs between waves as the Chubbs propose,
> > > 2. The process occurs between 3 or 4 deuterons as Takahashi proposes,
> > > 3. The process is alpha emission after a metal-deuteron reaction, or
> > > 4. The process involves a hydrogen or deuterium nuclei which has been
> > > partially neutralized by its electron, as proposed in several
> > > variations by Dufour, Mills and Kozima.
> >
> > Let me address these from the bottom up.  With regard to (4) all that
> > does, it seems to me, is to alter the overall reaction rate, but it will
> > not dramatically change the reaction process that is initiated.  Thus
> > the fusion which results will look very much like muon-catalyzed
> > fusion.
>
> No, it is proposed that reaction would lead to neutron activation of
> some metal impurity following by alpha emission.

At last a specfic nuclear reaction hypothesis to be addressed!  By
neutron activation I presume you mean the transfer of a neutron from a
donor nucleus (to be specified) to a receptor with resulting excitation
of that nucleus sufficient to allow the emission of an alpha particle. 
If this is what you mean, we can proceed to decide whether experimental
evidence supports this picture.

> >As for (3) I have already indicated a willingness to explore
> > that sort of reaction process further, but we will still have to deal
> > with why it does not look like known reaction processes.
>
> The reactions seem to look like normal alpha emission.  The problem is
> how the alpha emitter was made in the first place

Oh there are more problems than just figuring out how the alpha emitter
is made.  We have to address such things as energetic alphas thus
produced and what they do to the chemical environment in which this
reaction occurs. We have to deal with multiple isotopes leading to
variations on this theme.  We have to consider competing decay
processes.  I suspect you are still going to be appealing to the concept
of multiple miracles on demand.

> > Now, if we
> > have taken Takahashi's "evidence" for 3 or 4 deuteron processes off the
> > table, we have no way to judge this claim except to consider what we
> > know about multi-body processes from all sorts of other studies.  That
> > is to say it is pretty obvious that reaction rates drop off dramatically
> > when more than two bodies get involved.
>
> Yes, and this drop off is consistent with the need for a very high
> deuterium concentration.

It isn't just the highly improbably nature of 3 and 4 body processes
that must be considered.  We need to know what keeps the 2 body process
out of the picture.

> Without getting into details, Scott is suggesting that deuterons can act
> like waves in a lattice.  They can act like waves when passed through a
> diffraction grating as single particles.  If the lattice looks like a
> diffraction grating because of the periodicity, why would this effect
> not be seen there?

I fear you have failed to grasp the significance of what Scott is
proposing within the context of a real physical system, something which
I assert does not and cannot exist as proposed.  The diffraction grating
is an appropriate analogy only if the periodicity actually exists.  The
Chubb theory starts with an appeal to the analogy of conduction
electrons in a periodic lattice.  In the case of those electrons the
theory does describe real phenomena because certain conditions in that
lattice are well approximated by the Chubb picture, namely the electrons
move essentially as free particles and can interact only in a limited
way with other electrons that remain bound to the atoms of the lattice. 
The model may even have limited applicability for some deuterons in a
fully loaded lattice -- the so called ion band state.

However Scott Chubb overextended the conduction-electron model to
involve some other degrees of freedom, namely the internal motions of
the deuterons. In this regard there are two false notions that come into
play.  First is the notion that the temperature T=0 condition applies,
in any sense. It must be noted that each degree of freedom has a
temperature to be considered.  There is not an overall temperature
unless all degrees of freedom are coupled.  What Scott Chubb is
attempting to hide behind a seemingly harmless assumption of T=0 is the
notion that all the deuterons are in a perfectly ordered state.  In
pratical terms that means that all deuterons have their spins alligned.
However, in the real world we don't have a lattice at T=0.  The lattice
temperature is actually 300 K, more than enough to totally disorder the
deuteron spins.  Even if the lattice were cooled to shall we say 4 K the
deuterons would remain totally disordered because the energy spectrum
for the various spin allignments is very, very low.

The problem with the Chubb picture does not end there, however.  Having
finessed the question of nuclear ordering, we move on to the assumed
model for the strong interaction potential that is provided by the
periodic lattice.  Because of the chosen formalism it gets difficult to
see what Chubb is proposing, but he essentially is saying that the
deuteron can come apart leaving two bits to experience a periodic
lattice separately. One of those bits is a virtual neutron.  It can't be
a real, free neutron, because the deuteron is bound by 2.225 MeV -- not
something that gives a hoot about the chemical environment, no matter
what Ed Storms wishes. So the real clincher is just what Scott Chubb
assumes that this virtual neutron encounters at distances a kazillion
times its normal range of travel.  He assumes that it encounters NOTHING
but still sees a periodic potential.  By the way Scott Chubb is still
attempting to explain cold fusion, which Ed Storms and I have now agreed
does not occur.

So it's an (n, alpha) reaction is it?  We'll see how well that notion
flies.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:40:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16085;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:36:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:36:37 -0800
Message-ID: <3650DF7B.AF1 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:29:15 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  11.16.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"00EB82.0.xw3.p4EKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24642
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 11.11.98
  Date:  Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:18:50 -0500
  From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

>Scott, let's go through the simple excercise of counting all the
>nucleons in a unit cell with a mind toward estimating what may
>contribute to the lattice potential for strong interactions.  I see
>three contributions to be considered: (1) the 105 nucleons in a Pd
>nucleus (2) the 2 nucleons in the deuteron bound to the lattice and (3)
>the estimated 10^-5 nucleons in the ion-band deuterons.  Off hand, I
>would say the largest contribution to a strong interaction potential at
>distances comparable to the lattice spacing will come from item (1), and
>we can chuck item (3) as being SEVEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller.

Dick,  I think this comment illustrates the relevance of something that
I said at the end of my last set of comments to you:

"It might prove useful to ask a fundamental question:  when is it
possible for interaction of any sort to occur.  Quantum Mechanics has
rules for this.  I outlined this in my last message.  Possibly, it would
be useful for you to address my comments in detail with regard to this
point."

In particular, interaction is dictated by the time evolution of the
overlap between two states.  More specifically, the time derivative of
the overlap between an initial state and a final state, at a particular
time, defines the interaction potential matrix element.  In order to
have interaction, there must be overlap.  This is a basic statement of
quantum mechanics.

There is no overlap between the normal (i.e., non-band state) deuterium
with itself (except as a singly occupied nucleus) or with any other
nucleus.  This is because of the prohibitive Coulomb barrier that is
involved.  Because of the electromagnetic environment that gives rise to
the occupation of ion band states, there is no reason to believe that
the nuclear portions of D+ ions that occupy ion band states have overlap
with any nuclei except ion band state nuclei.  This is mandated by the
requirements that lead to Born Oppenheimer separability between the
nuclear and electrostatic portions of the wave function.

Thus, no "normal" D+ overlap occurs with each other or Pd nuclei; ion
band state D+ nuclei can overlap only with each other.  For this reason,
the interaction potential matrix elements only involve band state --
band state overlap; and your comments about the Pd nucleons are
irrelevant.  The key point is that the entire strong potential
associated with the lattice, which seems to be what you are concerned
with, has a great many quantities involved with it, but most of these
are entirely irrelevant to the question of overlap and interaction
potential.

>What I am suggesting that before you can get to a consideration of the
>"self-interaction term" in the potential for the separation coordinate
>you must first shut down something that is clearly more significant.
>How is that done?

My last set of comments explains this.  The time evolution of the
overlap defines the interaction.  The nuclear quantities that you have
alluded to either have no overlap with anything or have overlap with the
comparable ground state quantities; and the time derivative of this
overlap vanishes.

>> These are not what are involved in a T=0, periodically ordered system.
>> What is foreign to you is the concept of a T=0, ordered solid.
>>
>> >Of course, if you make all sorts of idealizations you
>> >can preserve whatever you want, but so what?
>>
>> The T=0 behavior of an ordered solid is the key starting point for much
>> of what is understood about solid state physics at room temperature.
>> The perturbations of this idealization are used to explain finite
>> temperature effects, in particular.  So, you are simply wrong to suggest
>> that this idealization has little relevance.
>
>Whether this idealization has relevance depends on what aspects of the
>systems behavior we are considering, does it not?  Electron conductivity
>and superconductivity and a host of other phenomena may well demonstrate
>just the sorts of effects that are properly described by Bloch wave
>functions and all the rest.  That does not mean that we have to accept
>this same explaination for absolutely everything else you can dream up.
>In particular, I still have not seen you address the question of what
>effect nuclear binding will have on the wave function for the separation
>coordinate of the deuteron. If you can unglue the ion-band deuterons why
>don't you unglue absolutely everything in the lattice?  

The ion-band deuterons do not "unbind".  Pairs of ion-band deuterons
"bind", releasing 23.8 MeV.  It is certainly true that not all effects
are properly described by Bloch states, but as temperature T->0, this
approximation becomes better and better.

>The mere fact that we refer to this nuclear matter as being "deuterons" is a
>direct reflection, I should think, of the fact that we consider them to be
>bound.  Again I repeat that bound systems are not well described by
>Bloch wave functions.

This is your misconception, not mine.  Bloch functions describe bound,
as well as unbound states, in solids.  It's just that this fact is not
usually emphasized.  In particular, for example, it really is not
"possible," without performing a measurement, to distinguish one
"core-like" electron from a second "core-like" electron.   And in some
forms of photoexcitation, for example, banding (dispersive) effects in
core states are readily observable.

Beyond this point, however, I think you are bothered by the fact that
each proton and neutron within each deuteron occupy a band state.  It
should be emphasized in this picture that only the proton neutron pair
is stable (i.e., infinitely long-lived); there are no free neutrons or
protons.  The reason for this is associated with what I have mentioned
concerning potential processes that do not violate Born-Oppenheimer
separability.  The key point is that although each deuteron pair
occupies Bloch states both in its C.M. and separation variables, the
combined pair is "bound," in the sense that each deuteron in the pair is
bound both to the lattice and to the remaining deuteron in the pair.


>You said you did some sort of selfconsistant energy minimization to show
>that Bloch wave functions are appropriate.  I don't believe you!  As I
>noted, the strong-interaction part of the potential involves something
>like 108 bodies per unit cell.  I know what nuclear mater calculations
>look like, so I am not convinced you have solved this problem.

I know what the "strong-interaction" potential looks like as well.  And,
if the calculation involved the entire strong-interaction calculation,
as you suggest, I would go along with what you are saying.  However, as
I have pointed out, the interaction potential (associated with the
actual quantum mechanical problem) is defined by the time derivative of
the overlap between the initial and final states.  The 108 bodies that
you are concerned with have no bearing on this.

In point of fact, the self-consistent calculation I alluded to did not
deal with this point.  This point, concerning the nature of interaction,
is associated with fundamental definitions of quantum mechanics.

The self-consistent calculation illustrates how the Coulomb barrier is
overcome.  As I mentioned, you can find out about this in more detail at

http://www.angelfire.com/va/schubb

Before you misquote what is germane, in the future, it would be useful
if you checked your facts.

>> Nature does define ground states that have particular rules.  If it can
>> be shown that the rules of an assumed ground state (and fluctuations
>> about the ground state) conform to observation, then the model of the
>> rules has some relevance.  The point is that the ground state can have
>> rules that uniquely preserve the conditions of the ground state.  When
>> this holds, the ground state becomes stable with respect to certain
>> forms of fluctuation.  The significance of this is that if Nature
>> prepares the system in such a way that the only forms of fluctuation
>> that are present preserve the ground state, then the ground state
>> becomes stable.  If the ground state is sufficiently stable,
>> interactions can occur.
>>
>> >Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
>> >justify saying that everything has to remain in its
>> >ground state because it's at T=0.  Unless you have
>> >some infinite heat sink hidden in the lattice there is
>> >nothing to keep it at T=0 if there is an energy source
>> >present.
>>
>> The question of how well the T=0 limit applies is a function of crystal
>> size, loading and energy gap.
>
>I think we know something about how well your limit applies to the real
>problem.  The deuteron lattice is totally disordered with respect to the
>separation coordinate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.  

At T=0, you simply can never assert this to be true.  In fact, at T=0,
the deuteron lattice must be ordered with respect to this separation.
Otherwise, a finite entropy contribution is present, and either 1) the
system is not at T=0, or 2) there is latent heat in the system that has
not been accounted for.

More importantly, we have illustrated that the energy is lowered
(through Coulombic interaction) when the deuteron lattice is ordered
with respect to the separation coordinate.  This occurs because the
Coulombic repulsion is reduced coherently when this dependence is
present.  The result is self-consistent, because fluctuations exist that
preserve this symmetry while maintaining the T=0 configuration.

Again, in the real problem, there is reason to believe that considerable
order is present (based on neutron scattering experiments).

>You have not given us, for example, even an estimate of the energy
>differences between between the various nuclear orientations.  You have
>not made reference to any observed phenomena that would reflect nuclear
>ordering in this, or any other, lattice. What you are talking about, in
>general, are the phenomena that are associated with conduction electrons
>in a lattice. Specifically there are conduction electrons only because
>levels below the band gap are fully occupied.  

The last part of this comment is simply a mistatement both about our
theory and about the nature of periodic phenomena in solids.  In
particular, "What [I am not] talking about, in general, are the
phenomena that are [simply] associated with conduction electrons in a
lattice...[and] there are conduction electrons only because levels below
the band gap are fully occupied."  This comment totally misses the
point.  I am talking about the coherent phenomena that result from
periodic order.  These provide a means for momenta to be transferred
locally or non-locally to or away from a particular location without
changing the energy of anything within the solid.  These phenomena play
an important role in electron conduction, but are considerably more
general in nature.  In particular, they are of fundamental importance in
Bragg scattering of x-rays, and the Mossbauer effect.

The first portion of your comment is somewhat vague.  If you mean that I
have not discussed the energies associated with disordering the nuclear
state, I think it is important to point out that, beginning from a T=0
configuration, until some outside form of entropy is introduced, there
is no disorder.  In fact, although Pd is not ferromagnetic, it is close
to being so; so that a degree of spin-spin coupling is expected.  In
small crystals, these questions very well may be irrelevant.  The reason
is that in these structures, mechanical changes can couple to the
underlying electronic structure in a manner that can result in magnetic
ordering of the nuclear moments.
  
>There simply is nothing
>analogous to this condition for the separation coordinate and the strong
>interaction potential. In essence, you are insisting that a virtual
>neutron can spread throughout the lattice as a free particle, but that
>it will not interact with any other nucleons present in that lattice.

This is your conclusion, and yours alone.  For the separation coordinate
to be present, all that is required is taht there is a second Bloch
function deuteron present.  Through the C.M. coordinate of each
deuteron, each neutron has a proton paired with it, and vice-versa. 
Then, the neutron is paired to the proton that might be in one unit
cell, or a second unit cell, or a third,..., etc..  In the case of the
separation variable, what happens is that each proton-neutron (p-n) pair
is paired with a second p-n pair which may be in one unit cell, or a
second unit cell, or a third,...etc.  I think what bothers you is that
this is equivalent to saying that the reaction occurs in all unit cells
at once.  And there is nothing wrong with this. But behind this, most
assuredly, is not the statement, which you assert, that each neutron
spreads out as a "virtual free particle."

The picture we present is entirely consistent with conventional nuclear
physics as it should apply when coherent interactions resulting from
periodic order are present.

>I would further note that many of the properties of conduction electrons
>require the very long range of the coloumb interaction potential.  A
>change in the radial dependence of the interaction potential to
>something more appropriate for the strong interaction can make all this
>disappear in a puff of smoke.

The process is a delicate one and is clearly materials dependent.

>Dick Blue

Finally, I'd like to comment on the following remark that you made
recently in a discussion with Ed Storms.  You said the following:

> I would anticipate something similar to that behavior, should there be
> a perturbing effect of a palladium lattice on the fusion of two
> deuterons.  In particular such a perturbation is unlikely, I would
> suggest, to totally supress the emission of neutrons. 

This is true when the "normal" factorization of nuclear and
electrostatic wave functions occurs; this factorization is allowable
when the strong and electromagnetic interactions proceed on very
different timescales.  In a coherent solid near T=0, all bets are off
with regard to this point because, as a consequence of coherence, it is
not necessarily required that nuclear and electromagnetic interactions
proceed with dramatically different energy scales.  (This is especially
true when the location of the nuclear reaction becomes indeterminate,
modulo a lattice vector, through the kinds of processes that I have
outlined.)

> It is clear that
> if the phenomena has the characteristics Ed Storms would ascribe to it,
> we are not dealing with small perturbations. The claims for CANR
> success, if they are correct, demand major alterations in nuclear wave
> functions.  

The perturbing potentials can, if fact, be quite small.  However, this
occurs through alterations in the wave functions.  The alterations, as I
have just suggested, result from the requirement that energy scales for
electromagnetic and nuclear reactions need not be very different.

> The choice, it seems to me, is to consider either unexpected
> experimental difficulties or mindboggling theoretical problems.  

These are only mind-boggling theoretically if you assume that the usual
picture involving incoherent interactions is involved.

>I do not get the impression that Ed Storms has the proper respect for just
> what is required to accommodate his assessment of the experimental
> evidence. He seems to think you can turn off neutron emission as easily
> as turning off a light.  I don't think so.

I don't think you've addressed two important questions:

1.)  What is required (as opposed to what is usual) in quantum
mechanical interactions involving nucleons,

2.)  How can coherent interactions alter the rules for quantum
mechanical interactions involving nucleons.

There is a final point.  The theoretical framework from which our theory
is derived is based not only on the rules of solid state and nuclear
physics and the behavior of PdD, but it is self-consistent in the sense
that the initial quantities are well-defined, and the perturbations of
these quantities are small.  For example, there are no high energy
particles, essentially, because there are no highly localized
distributions of particles or charges that are ever involved in the
interactions.

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 18:55:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24028;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:53:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:53:27 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate2.mot.com from client pobox2.mot.com, sender John_Steck css.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-ID: <3650BBA1.3EB8AE9D css.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:56:17 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981115203607.10827C-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------D440CEABB7C5B188C8DEBCC0"
Resent-Message-ID: <"b1iVZ1.0.It5.cKEKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24644
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.
--------------D440CEABB7C5B188C8DEBCC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

William Beaty wrote:
> I intend to revamp the charter and rules.  I'm considering a 3-channel
> setup: a low-traffic "hard science" list, a brainstorm/chat list, and a=

> results-announcements list.  The target audience will be physical scien=
ce
> people (professional & advanced amateur), and the topics will be simila=
r
> to the older vortex discussions: CF, transmutation, energy devices,
> antigravity, & unusual physical phenomena.

Bill-

This situation sounds very similar to an internal communications problem =
I had
to address not too long ago.  Might I suggest something that has worked
effectively for us?  =


In a nut shell, post a single webpage with the three list choices.  Email=
 link
each choice with the appropriate list address.  Post the criteria and rul=
es for
each listing under each choice's hotlink.  At the end of each description=
 have
an email link to the appropriate subscribe/unsubscribe daemon.

Automates the process a bit and creates a bookmarkable site that facilita=
tes
proper use.  See attached example.  If you like the concept, you are welc=
ome to
use it in whole or in part, no strings attached, no credit needed.  Fill =
in the
various sections and addresses with whatever wording or content you feel
appropriate.

Hope this helps a bit.  I look forward to the the reorganization.  Sorry =
we are
such a pain the ass...  8^)


-- =


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 =

    Copyright =A9 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith =

    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of =

    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. =

    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.
--------------D440CEABB7C5B188C8DEBCC0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii;
 name="vortex-sample.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="vortex-sample.html"

<! Last Edit 11/16/98 - John_Steck css.mot.com>
<HTML>
<HEAD><TITLE>Vortex-L Message Center</TITLE></HEAD>
<BODY BACKGROUND="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/w.gif">
<BASEFONT SIZE=3>
<CENTER>

<P><BR><P><BR>
<FONT SIZE=6><B>Vortex-L Science and Technology Discussion Group</B></FONT>

<P>
<TABLE WIDTH=500 BORDER=4 CELLPADDING=8 CELLSPACING=2 BGCOLOR=EFEEEF BORDERCOLOR=silver>
<TR BGCOLOR=AFAAAF>
  <TH WIDTH=33%><FONT COLOR=white SIZE=+1><I>Data<BR>Analysis</TH>
  <TH WIDTH=34%><FONT COLOR=white SIZE=+1><I>Brainstorming</TH>
  <TH WIDTH=33%><FONT COLOR=white SIZE=+1><I>Protocols &<BR>Technology</TH>
</TR>
<TR BGCOLOR=DFDDDF> 
  <TH HEIGHT=80><A HREF="mailto:vortex-A eskimo.com?subject=Data -> "><FONT SIZE=+2>POST<BR>MESSAGE</TH>
  <TH HEIGHT=80><A HREF="mailto:vortex-B eskimo.com?subject=Brainstorm -> "><FONT SIZE=+2>POST<BR>MESSAGE</TH>
  <TH HEIGHT=80><A HREF="mailto:vortex-C eskimo.com?subject=Protocol -> "><FONT Size=+2>POST<BR>MESSAGE</TH>
</TR>
<TR>
  <TD><CENTER>
    Description of appropriate topics, etc.
    <P><BR>
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexA-request eskimo.com?subject=SUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=+1><B>I AGREE</B></FONT>
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexA-request eskimo.com?subject=UNSUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=-1><I>UNSUBSCRIBE</I></FONT>
  </TD>
  <TD><CENTER>
    Description of appropriate topics, etc.
    <P><BR>
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexB-request eskimo.com?subject=SUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=+1><B>I AGREE</B></FONT>
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexB-request eskimo.com?subject=UNSUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=-1><I>UNSUBSCRIBE</I></FONT>
  </TD>
  <TD><CENTER>
    Description of appropriate topics, etc.
    <P><BR>   
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexC-request eskimo.com?subject=SUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=+1><B>I AGREE</B></FONT>
    <P><A HREF="mailto:vortexC-request eskimo.com?subject=UNSUBSCRIBE"><FONT SIZE=-1><I>UNSUBSCRIBE</I></FONT>
  </TD>
</TR>
<TR BGCOLOR=DFDDDF>
  <TD COLSPAN=3>
  <CENTER>
    Rules of engagement, penalties for misuse of the topic areas, etc.
  </CENTER>
  </TD>
</TR>
<TR>
  <TH COLSPAN=3>
  <P><A HREF="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html">Zipped Messages by Month</A>
  <P><A HREF="http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/">eScribe Message Archive</A>
  <P><A HREF="http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/chat/">eScribe Chat Area</A>
  </TH>
</TR>
</TABLE>

<P><BR>
Site Maintained by: <A HREF="mailto:billb eskimo.com?subject=Hello Bill!">Bill Beaty</A>.

<P><BR>
</CENTER>
</BODY>
</HTML>
   
--------------D440CEABB7C5B188C8DEBCC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 19:04:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29019;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:01:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:01:21 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27691a51e74 [12.64.37.141]>
In-Reply-To: <199811162114.PAA07855 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:45:05 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: New list for experiment discussion only
Resent-Message-ID: <"XJmXW.0.K57.0SEKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24645
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

SETI, SOHO and the like are at least marginally on-topic as far as I'm
concerned. Endless SPECULATION about conspiracies coverups, aliens, free
energy or anything else are NOT and never were.

Mitchell congratulations, you've won! You've achieved the highest honor
available to anyone who trolls lists to create controversy: you got one of
your target lists to be broken up. I said if you persisted you could
destroy this list and I WAS RIGHT.

Maybe I should give up on being a "good citizen" and become an arsonist or
something. It's much easier to succeed these days in burning something down
than it is to build it with brains and effort. Sometimes it even pays
pretty well. Monica just signed for 7 figures.

It's been a good run, Vorts. Thanks.

Gnorts.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 19:20:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA04303;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:16:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:16:00 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:12:11 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Severe Vortex-L changes
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811162215_MC2-6071-1776 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"ROqTQ.0.731.lfEKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24646
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I applaud these proposed changes. But as a practical matter, I think three
tiers might be confusing. It will be difficult to know what is #2 and what is
#3. I would make two tiers. Number 1 is strictly on-topic science, critiques,
conference announcements, and other serious, on-topic info, include on-topic
debates and arguments -- which are an essential part of science. Number 2 is
everything else. People who break the rules and post lots of off-topic stuff
on #1 are banished to #2 for a month. If a tiresome argument or a discussion
of SETI drags on in #2, you press a button, unsubscribe, and miss it for a few
weeks.

I would be happy to post my occasional short history essay, joke, diatribe or
off-topic comments on #2. I presume it would not be archived, or archived
separately.

>From time to time, someone might suggest that a #2 topic should slide into #1
or vice versa. If two or three others second the motion it should be done as a
matter of course, and the author should not take it personally or argue. The
process should be no more controversial or drawn out than the assignment of
physics papers to sessions in a conference. Many papers do not fall into neat
categories like "materials" "nuclear detection" or "theory" but they have to
be placed somewhere, and it would be childish to argue with conference
organizers about category assignments.

This system will make it more rewarding for serious contributors, and it may
encourage more meaty contributions. As a sometimes-contributor of serious
material, I would feel more inclined to go to the effort to post comments or
answer questions if I knew they would not be lost in a blizzard of irrelevant
glop. And it does take effort, and time, and thought, and looking up the
facts. I, for one, do not have this material at my fingertips.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 19:21:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05072;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:17:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:17:46 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:12:31 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Another extraordinary claim from Swartz
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811162217_MC2-6074-FCEE compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"SQ4nl.0.9F1.PhEKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24647
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Years ago Mitchell Swartz claimed that he had a reproducible excess heat
effect that produced multiple watts of heat. He said he would soon demonstrate
it. He never published or demonstrated anything; apparently the claim faded
away like many other cold fusion hopes. I suppose he was disappointed to learn
that it does not work after all. Now he has made another extraordinary yet
nebulous claim, that might be revolutionary, or it might not mean a thing. He
writes:

    It was posted previously that we [JET Energy Technology] have generated
  electrical output from cf systems, including by the use of
  thermoelectric conversion.  We have lit light bulbs by this technique
  for several years now.

The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and not
Joule heating from electrolysis. It may even mean the reactions were
self-sustaining (either heat after death or regenerative). After all, what
would be the point of describing a cell in which ten watts of Joule heating
plus a half watt of cold fusion heat together drive a thermoelectric device?
That would be a trivial accomplishment. (For that matter, it could be a
mistake. The entire 10.5 watts might be joule heating, and the CF portion
might be a calorimetry error.)

Unless this claim is clarified, quantified, and specific details are provided,
I am afraid it does not mean much. Unfortunately, in the past when Scott
Little and others have asked Swartz to clarify, he has always refused. He will
not even tell us how many watts his devices produce, which is the bare minium
information anyone needs to sort out a claim. Low power claims (below a
half-watt) are dubious except when reported by expert like Miles, and a low
power claim from an unconventional, unique calorimeter like Swartz's should be
automatically rejected out of hand, by my stick-in-the-mud conventionalist
standards. You can develop revolutionary calorimetry, or you can develop
revolutionary energy, but you cannot develop both in the same cell at the same
time.

In any case, if this claim is anything like it appears to be, it is exiting
and revolutionary, and it deserves proof. It could be an important scientific
breakthrough, and it might interest serious investors. Swartz denies it, but
there are, in fact, many wealthy individuals and corporations anxious to
invest in cold fusion. If he has accomplish what he hints here, he could
easily attract major funding. However, as things stand there is no proof, and
no sensible person would believe this claim. The ironclad standards of science
must first be met: we must have verification and replication. Verification
means that a reliable, objective, credible expert observer sees the phenomenon
in the laboratory and describes it freely for publication. Replication means
someone else makes the same thing happen in his own lab, starting from
scratch. The person replicating may get help from the original scientist, but
not materials and no hands-on lab-bench assistance.

I presume that no third party has independently verified the phenomenon, and
of course no one has ever independently replicated it, or I would have heard
by now. I also presume that Swartz has no intention of allowing verification
or replication. I would love to be wrong about that, but after watching years
of pathological self-destructive behavior by cold fusion scientists, I predict
he will not act in his own best interests. If he has not plans to establish
real credibility, then I think he has made a mistake announcing these
extravagant (albeit vague) claims here, publicly. Without proper follow-up to
establish credibility, such claims boomerangs back at the scientist, ruining
his reputation and credibility. People quickly ask, "why hasn't he proved it?
He could win the Noble; he could be the richest man on earth!"  That is what
they say about CETI for example, and of course they are right.

CETI shot themselves in the foot by publicly demonstrating only once, and then
trying to hide the evidence. It would have been better for everyone, including
me, if they had never held the Power-Gen demo or made the claims in the first
place. I am left in the awkward position of defending an observation that I
know -- and have always freely admitted -- was a one-shot, one-time
observation made under the worst conditions imaginable, with crappy equipment.
Deliberately crappy equipment! As I have often said, I saw what I saw, but
without follow-up and replication it does not mean anything. It was only
recently revealed in Wired magazine that even CETI cannot reproduce the
extraordinary high input to output ratios they saw years ago. (I knew this,
but I was not a liberty to talk about it.) These are mitigating circumstances
. . . sort of. I can think of a hundred ways I might have salvaged the
situation while some high performance working beads remained.

The lesson is, do not make a claim unless you plan to make it stick, but
following it with the kind of credible, publicly available evidence reasonable
people will expect. Do not try to bamboozle the public, which is collectively
much smarter than you are. Do not perform a fan-dance or a coitus interruptus
sales scheme; do not try to hide the evidence in obscure journals or under
layers of incomprehensible scientific jargon. Stuff the secret codes,
deliberate vagueness, and all the other shopworn stupid tricks. Shopworn! They
are ancient. They go back at least as far as Galileo, who used every one of
them in politics, backstabbing, and other academic shenanigans. They probably
go back to the first cavemen inventors, yet they never work. They always
boomerang back and undo the trickster.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 19:48:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA19569;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:44:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:44:55 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981117035141.00e82510 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, 16 Nov 1998 22:51:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: WATER JET CUTTING SYSTEMS
  (http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjettin
Resent-Message-ID: <"yHNjc.0.dn4.t4FKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24648
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:34 AM 11/16/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Any way you slice it?  This type of system was used to help rescue the
>toddler
>that fell into a well in Midland,Texas several years ago. O/U possibilities
>in the
>jet?

Victor Schauberger might have suggested attaching Kudu antelope horn shaped
tubes to a hollow hub in a radial pattern. Spinning the hub on a hollow
shaft will produce a vacuum which will pull water up the shaft, through the
hub and out the ends of the Kudu tubes. The fluid outflow is directed on the
rippled ring (was there mention of something like this here?) which angles
the flow back onto a plate on the Kudu tube which propels the wheel to spin.
At a certain threshold of conditions, the water implodes, generates energy
and operates without power input.

I was fooling with the script commands in 3DStudio MAX and discovered how to
input math functions to generate complex precision 3D solid geometries like
a Kudu antelope horn tube. All we need now is access to a stereolithographic
rapid prototyping machine to splat together the investment casting cores.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 20:28:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03278;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:26:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:26:13 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116231711.007ecb40 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:17:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Another extraordinary claim from Swartz
In-Reply-To: <199811162217_MC2-6074-FCEE compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ks1Kn1.0.8p.ahFKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24649
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 10:12 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> M.Swartz: It was posted previously that we [JET Energy Technology] have
generated
>  electrical output from cf systems, including by the use of
>  thermoelectric conversion.  We have lit light bulbs by this technique
>  for several years now.
>
>"The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
>driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and not
>Joule heating from electrolysis....Unless this claim is clarified, 
>quantified, and specific details are provided,
> I am afraid it does not mean much."


 The numbers were in the previous cited post, and in the
Fusion Facts article, DESPITE the latest self-serving BS
from Jed Rothwell who doesnt have a CLUE about calibration.

 Unlike Jed-"we dont need no calibration"-Rothwell,
we use several calibration procedures, time integration
of both input and output power, and chemical as well as joule controls.
Also, unlike Jed, we publish in peer-reviewed journals.

  Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 20:30:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA04959;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:29:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:29:10 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116231325.007f1690 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:13:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Another extraordinary claim from Swartz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qb70s2.0.AD1.KkFKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24650
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 10:12 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell incorrectly wrote:

> Rothwell: "Mitchell Swartz ... never published ...  anything"


  Incorrect.

  Jed Rothwell should try READING Fusion Technology where we have
published in that peer-reviewed journal published by the American
Nuclear Society - IF in fact, Jed can read a science journal.

 Anyone SERIOUSLY interested in cold fusion should access Dieter Britz's 
bibliography where 4 of our 6 papers in Fusion Technology are listed, 
and they can get the Journal of New Energy and the ICCF-7 Proceedings 
where more information has been published. 
And they can get the vortex archives where numerous references have been
given, even though ignored by Rothwell.


 CONCLUSION:
  Given our copious publications, including the numerous references
which were posted on vortex, Jed Rothwell again demonstrates that
he is a manipulative liar, who continues to turn vortex into
his personal attack-forum.   

  Jed Rothwell once again demonstrates that his
head unfortunately remains quite firmly up his own anus, while he apparently
tries to learn 'science' from his Britannica CDROM.  
  Someone ought pass him a towel, and a library card, please.

      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 20:46:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10613;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:44:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:44:26 -0800
Message-ID: <3650FF7D.515B skylink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:45:49 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex-L topic limits
References: <199811160651.AAA18035 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ukj102.0.bb2.eyFKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24651
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{Indeed, and for a very good reason: it appears that, for the first
> time, some actual hard facts are emerging which permit reasoned, scientific
> discussion of whether ET's exist. 

For the first time? 
Mitchell, I will suggest to you again, as others have already. 

You haven't done your homework.

OK. ETs exist and they're here.  

It is not what this list is about.
So -- Got any ideas about New Science?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 21:00:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17216;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:58:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:58:40 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b276aff93eba [12.64.4.141]>
In-Reply-To: <199811162215_MC2-6071-1776 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:54:42 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Resent-Message-ID: <"c25rY2.0.rC4._9GKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24652
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I second Jed's notion of two-tiered list division. This makes a LOT of
sense and I like it. It's already used with success on the newsgroups where
there are no-spam user moderated groups for binary postings with a sister
group for discussions (usually named with a ".d" suffix for "discussion").
That would make it easy to browse the latest announcements, results, and
on-topic brief discussions of experiments in progress, then go discuss it
all at length in the other forum if you feel like wading through longer
lists of messages and speculative material.

2's just right but 3's a crowd.

Bill?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 22:21:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA11555;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981117061815.00eb4064 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, 17 Nov 1998 01:18:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Resent-Message-ID: <"UXs3a.0.Qq2.wLHKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24653
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:34 PM 11/16/98 -0700, you wrote:

(snip)

>Why not? Actually my interest is in whether or not that 2500 ft/second (Mach
>2.5) water jet is producing any O/U.
>
>That's got to be at least an order of magnitude above anything a vortex
>microcavitation bubble
>collapse could do.

If some sort of atomization method were possible, they might make awesome
nozzles for the Lord Kelvin falling water electric generator.

http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel/kelv1.htm


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 23:46:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03575;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:17 -0800
Message-Id: <199811170743.BAA18647 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:42:25 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Vortex-L topic limits
Resent-Message-ID: <"iSOH21.0.jt.GbIKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24654
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> ***{Indeed, and for a very good reason: it appears that, for the first
>> time, some actual hard facts are emerging which permit reasoned, scientific
>> discussion of whether ET's exist.
>
>For the first time?
>Mitchell, I will suggest to you again, as others have already.
>
>You haven't done your homework.

***{In most cases, people take cheap shots because they have nothing
substantive to say. Please stop wasting my time. --MJ}***

>
>OK. ETs exist and they're here.

***{The odds are overwhelming that they exist, but I am not sure that they
are here. If the discussion of that issue had not been derailed by the
screeching and howling of would-be censors, who knows what facts and
insights might have emerged? Unfortunately, we will never know. The moment
is lost and cannot be reclaimed, and most of the individuals who were
interested in that topic are still hiding in their foxholes. (And what good
was served by the conflict that drove them there? I will never, to the end
of my days, fully comprehend what it is that renders some people unwilling
to coexist peacably with persons who have different views and interests.)
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>It is not what this list is about.

***{According to the present charter, and according to the list owner, the
list is not "about" anything in particular. Thus you are technically
correct: ET's are not what the list is about. However, it isn't about "cold
fusion" either. On the other hand, if you are trying to say that SETI, or
ET's, or "flying saucers" are off topic, you are wrong. The fact that the
charter is likely to change in the near future doesn't alter what it has
been in the past or what it still is at present. What the new charter will
look like, of course, is anybody's guess. I know what I would do, but then
it isn't my call. I will simply await Bill Beaty's decision like everyone
else. --Mitchell Jones}***

>So -- Got any ideas about New Science?

***{Frankly, I'm not even sure what you mean. --MJ}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 23:46:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03665;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:23 -0800
Message-Id: <199811170743.BAA18653 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:42:28 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Resent-Message-ID: <"JOONj1.0.Bv.MbIKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24656
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>To: Vortex
>
>I applaud these proposed changes. But as a practical matter, I think three
>tiers might be confusing. It will be difficult to know what is #2 and what is
>#3. I would make two tiers. Number 1 is strictly on-topic science, critiques,
>conference announcements, and other serious, on-topic info, include on-topic
>debates and arguments -- which are an essential part of science. Number 2 is
>everything else. People who break the rules and post lots of off-topic stuff
>on #1 are banished to #2 for a month. If a tiresome argument or a discussion
>of SETI drags on in #2, you press a button, unsubscribe, and miss it for a few
>weeks.

***{In my view, intolerance is capable of disrupting any list, and no
reshuffling of groups or topical boundaries can succeed without addressing
it directly. Quite the contrary: attempts to state clearly defined topical
boundaries ignore the reality that lines of relevance skip across topical
boundaries as if they did not exist. Attempts to hold discussions within
such artificial constraints merely create a focal point for dissention and
bickering, and make it easy to hide personal enmities behind a legalistic
facade. The result will be constant screeching and gnashing of teeth, and
constant demands for the manager to intervene in the list. As a result, the
manager's headaches will increase, not decrease, and people will
unsubscribe in droves. Bottom line: the proper approach is precisely the
one that Bill Beaty has been taking. Nothing should be explicitly declared
to be off topic. What is needed is a few tweaks to the charter, aimed at
fine tuning a well conceived and essentially correct approach, rather than
an abandonment of that approach. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>I would be happy to post my occasional short history essay, joke, diatribe or
>off-topic comments on #2. I presume it would not be archived, or archived
>separately.
>
>>From time to time, someone might suggest that a #2 topic should slide into #1
>or vice versa. If two or three others second the motion it should be done as a
>matter of course, and the author should not take it personally or argue. The
>process should be no more controversial or drawn out than the assignment of
>physics papers to sessions in a conference. Many papers do not fall into neat
>categories like "materials" "nuclear detection" or "theory" but they have to
>be placed somewhere, and it would be childish to argue with conference
>organizers about category assignments.

***{And, of course, nobody in this group is childish, and so this will not
be a problem, right? Indeed, we are all sheep here, waiting to be led. Thus
we can expect that as the rules proliferate and the decisions become more
and more arbitrary, the bickering in the group will decline, right? What a
laugh! You guys are hell bent on tossing out a system that was brilliantly
conceived and very well executed, for no discernible reason other than pig
headed intolerance and personal enmity. And to top it all off, you dare to
accuse *me* of trying to destroy this list? Ha! I'm rolling on the floor
laughing. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>This system will make it more rewarding for serious contributors, and it may
>encourage more meaty contributions. As a sometimes-contributor of serious
>material, I would feel more inclined to go to the effort to post comments or
>answer questions if I knew they would not be lost in a blizzard of irrelevant
>glop. And it does take effort, and time, and thought, and looking up the
>facts. I, for one, do not have this material at my fingertips.
>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 16 23:46:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA03600;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:44:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199811170743.BAA18650 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:42:27 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: New list for experiment discussion only
Resent-Message-ID: <"gNWk9.0.Au.HbIKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24655
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>SETI, SOHO and the like are at least marginally on-topic as far as I'm
>concerned. Endless SPECULATION about conspiracies coverups, aliens, free
>energy or anything else are NOT and never were.
>
>Mitchell congratulations, you've won! You've achieved the highest honor
>available to anyone who trolls lists to create controversy: you got one of
>your target lists to be broken up. I said if you persisted you could
>destroy this list and I WAS RIGHT.

***{Rubbish. If those who were not interested in the SETI thread had been
willing to peacably coexist with those who were, none of this would have
ever happened. That is a fact, and it is obvious to anyone who sees with
his own eyes and thinks with his own brain. As for the list being
destroyed, that remains to be seen. If Bill Beaty proceeds rationally and
in his own best interest, as I expect, the list will emerge from this
little contretemps stronger than it was before. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Maybe I should give up on being a "good citizen" and become an arsonist or
>something.

***{Based on your ongoing efforts to burn down this list, I would say you
are eminently qualified in terms of intent. --Mitchell Jones}***

It's much easier to succeed these days in burning something down
>than it is to build it with brains and effort.

***{You only think you have succeeded, Rick. We will not really know until
the changes are announced, now will we? --Mitchell Jones}***

Sometimes it even pays
>pretty well. Monica just signed for 7 figures.
>
>It's been a good run, Vorts. Thanks.

***{Don't celebrate until you know the patient is dead, Rick. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>Gnorts.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 00:19:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA19224;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:18:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:18:23 -0800
Message-ID: <000801be1202$490ee4e0$88b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:12:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"bKqkn2.0.Ii4.E5JKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24657
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:
>
>A rotational element is needed.
>
This is a vortex, John, only the radius is infinite.  :-)

The kinetic energy 0.5*mv^2 of each H20 molecule compared to the kinetic
energy kT at some temperature T:

At T = 3000 K (the temperature at which water is about 11% dissociated) v =
[kT/.5m]^1/2 = 1.67E3 meters/sec or 5,460 feet/sec, but the jet velocity is
about 2500 fps or 762 meters/sec which corresponds to a temperature
T = 0.5*mv^2/k = 629 K.

Since the jet is "cutting",the workpiece the water molecules must be Hot
enough to break chemical bonds in the workpiece and possibly some H-OH
bonds.

So, I guess what needs to be done is use a D2O
Jet which will double the effective temperature at a given velocity,then
double the velocity which will push the effective T beyond 5000 K
(about 0.434 ev) and start cutting Palladium sheet-stock with it.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 01:58:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA12191;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:57:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:57:41 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36513B20.DD2 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:00:16 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
References: <000801be1202$490ee4e0$88b4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xAP7w1.0.L-2.LYKKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24658
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 17, 1998

Vortex,

Wonder what might happen with two jets of D2O, each carrying opposite
charges, are turned to each other?

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 03:24:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA27488;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:23:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:23:39 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:21:08 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811170622_MC2-6077-54AA compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"CEV4K2.0.Ij6.xoLKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24660
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed,

>> This system will make it more rewarding for serious contributors, and it
may
encourage more meaty contributions. <<

What you are suggesting really boils down to -  Vortex-L for traditional
Vortex experimental and connected stuff;  all other chatter and speculation
can go to the multitude of web alt lists already set up for just that
flaming jun... er discussion.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 03:25:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA27412;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:23:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:23:35 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:21:07 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811170622_MC2-6077-54A9 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"p3fJl.0.9i6.soLKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24659
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> I wonder how they stop the nozzle from freezing from the TD pinch......
    John E. Steck <<

Are you referring to the vena contracta, or is there something more
esoteric which I should know about. In any case I would have thought that
there would be quite enough waste energy in the nozzle friction to prevent
freezing, even if they used sapphire.

>> The pout measurement would definitely have to be non-contact! <<

Normally the pout (assuming static p) is the pressure of the target
container or atm.  The pin can be measured by a number of standard methods.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 04:15:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA04853;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:14:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:14:22 -0800
Message-ID: <003701be1223$3dd6df80$88b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:10:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"MXBP11.0.lB1.TYMKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24661
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes

Norman wrote:


>Jed,
>
>>> This system will make it more rewarding for serious contributors, and it
>may
>encourage more meaty contributions. <<
>
>What you are suggesting really boils down to -  Vortex-L for traditional
>Vortex experimental and connected stuff;  all other chatter and speculation
>can go to the multitude of web alt lists already set up for just that
>flaming jun... er discussion.

This is beginning to look much better. I think we should run it by Bert and
Ernie for their opinion, too.

What do you say to that, Frank?  :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Norman
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 04:26:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA07809;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:24:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:24:45 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <36512216.15A55DCE mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:13:26 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (Off topic, sort of)
References: <364B7727.27AE interlaced.net> <364BBAEE.D46082E@mail.pc.centuryinter.net> <364C5653.BEF@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2E6E42BC77BDAD1824CB74CE"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WdEvS1.0.tv1.CiMKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24662
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.

--------------2E6E42BC77BDAD1824CB74CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Francis J. Stenger wrote:

 3. I just purchased a book from Amazon.com as follows:
    "Electronic Devices and Circuits Using MICRO-CAP II"
       by  R. H. Berube ...
 
 Wait a minute, Jack, I had an e-mail from Amazon.com on 10-19-98
 telling me that my order had decreased in price from $32.60 to $24.40!
 Check this out with A.c if you paid the old price!
 Old e-mail quoted below: ...
 
Hi Frank,

An email from Amazon is attached.

Jack

--------------2E6E42BC77BDAD1824CB74CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"


Dear Jack,

Greetings from Amazon.com!

I have checked our records and have found that, although �lectronic
Devices and Circuits Using Micro-Cap II" is still listed on our
website at a price of $32.60, the actual price should be $24.40.  You
should be receivin an email from us soon notifying you of this price
decrease. ...

Best regards, Melissa Higdon Amazon.com 


--------------2E6E42BC77BDAD1824CB74CE--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 04:36:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA11730;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:35:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:35:31 -0800
Message-ID: <005001be1226$354dc920$88b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:30:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"sEmZo2.0.Ct2.IsMKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24663
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: aki ix.netcom.com <aki@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting

Akira wrote:


>November 17, 1998
>
>Vortex,
>
>Wonder what might happen with two jets of D2O, each carrying opposite
>charges, are turned to each other?

Getting close to "Colliding Beam" technology, Akira. Also it might get
interesting to hit a
Boron 10-Carbide target with a Jet of D2O, which would allow a Fissioning of
Boron 10 with
any low-energy-spallation neutrons that come off the Deuterium.

Regards,    Frederick
>
>-ak-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 05:06:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23304;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:05:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:05:20 -0800
Message-ID: <006c01be122a$5e7058a0$88b4bfa8 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Colliding-Beam Experiments (http://www.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/colliding_beam.html)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:00:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE11EF.9FC38740"
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: <"nG85i3.0.-h5.FINKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24664
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_002F_01BE11EF.9FC38740
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


 Colliding-Beam Experiments=20
   =20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

=20
In a colliding-beam experiment two beams of high-energy particles are =
made to cross each other.=20

The advantage of this arrangement is that both beams have significant =
kinetic energy (energy of speed),  so a collision between them is more =
likely to produce a higher mass particle than would a fixed-target =
collision at the same energy. Since we are dealing with particles with a =
lot of momentum, these particles have short wavelengths and make =
excellent probes.=20



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
 =20

This is a fairly simplistic explanation to a very mathematical problem. =
To understand the reason why circular accelerators can deal with higher =
energies than linear accelerators, it is necessary to explore the =
physics of momenta and collisions.=20

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE11EF.9FC38740
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Colliding-Beam Experiments</TITLE><BASE =

href=3Dhttp://www.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/colliding_beam.html><!DOCTYPE =
HTML-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//ENPUBLIC>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<CENTER>
<H2><IMG height=3D13 src=3D"icons/eptitle.gif" width=3D180> =
Colliding-Beam Experiments=20
</H2></CENTER><A href=3D"lin_circ.html"><IMG align=3Dright alt=3DNext =
height=3D36=20
src=3D"buttons/next.gif" width=3D46> </A><A =
href=3D"fixed_target.html"><IMG=20
align=3Dright alt=3DBack height=3D36 src=3D"buttons/back.gif" =
width=3D46> </A><A=20
href=3D"adventure_home.html"><IMG align=3Dleft alt=3DHome height=3D36=20
src=3D"buttons/home.gif" width=3D56> </A><A href=3D"map_proj.html"><IMG =
align=3Dleft=20
alt=3D"I'M LOST!" height=3D36 src=3D"buttons/lost.gif" width=3D56> =
</A><BR=20
clear=3Dright><BR clear=3Dleft>
<HR>

<CENTER><IMG height=3D80 src=3D"images/colliding_beam.gif" width=3D317> =
</CENTER>
<P>In a colliding-beam experiment two beams of high-energy particles are =
made to=20
cross each other.=20
<P>The advantage of this arrangement is that both beams have significant =
kinetic=20
energy (energy of speed), <IMG align=3Dright height=3D90=20
src=3D"images/kinetic_energy.gif" width=3D185> so a collision between =
them is more=20
likely to produce a higher mass particle than would a fixed-target =
collision at=20
the same energy. Since we are dealing with particles with a lot of =
momentum,=20
these particles have short wavelengths and make excellent probes. <BR=20
clear=3Dright>
<HR>
<A href=3D"lin_circ.html"><IMG align=3Dright alt=3DNext height=3D36=20
src=3D"buttons/next.gif" width=3D46> </A><A =
href=3D"fixed_target.html"><IMG=20
align=3Dright alt=3DBack height=3D36 src=3D"buttons/back.gif" =
width=3D46> </A><BR=20
clear=3Dright><BR>This is a fairly simplistic explanation to a very =
mathematical=20
problem. To understand the reason why circular accelerators can deal =
with higher=20
energies than linear accelerators, it is necessary to <A=20
href=3D"more_collide.html">explore the physics of momenta and =
collisions.</A>=20
</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE11EF.9FC38740--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 05:56:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA08841;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:54:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:54:49 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b2772c9284fa [12.64.4.56]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:51:23 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Leonids
Resent-Message-ID: <"XhPrK1.0.3A2.f0OKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24665
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Anyone see any good Leonid meteors?

Saw a few here including one that painted an orange stripe across the
entire sky. The heads on some of them seemed dim and not very concentrated,
and the orange sparkly tails had some width to them. This doesn't make me
think "sand grains". When I see a bright pointlike dot make a razor thin
streak, I think sand grains work fine as an explanation. But I think some
of these need a different structural explanation. Makes sense that bits off
a comet might include chunks if ices with dust mixed in. I get the
impression that's what I saw a couple of times.

If a meteor is visible for 1 second, that's at *least* a 7 to 10 mile tail.
If the tail has some very noticable width at 50 miles up, it's probably at
least a couple hundred feet in diameter. That's a big column of sky for a
single little sand grain to fill with orange sparkles, all without having a
brightly lit central core.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 07:13:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11091;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:10:36 -0800 (PST)
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: <36519117.DB7D62FC css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:07:03 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: WATER JET CUTTING 
 SYSTEMS(http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjettin
References: <1.5.4.32.19981117035141.00e82510 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id HAA10990
Resent-Message-ID: <"n73z72.0.Dj2.g7PKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24666
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

"Dennis C. Lee" wrote:
> I was fooling with the script commands in 3DStudio MAX and discovered how to
> input math functions to generate complex precision 3D solid geometries like
> a Kudu antelope horn tube. All we need now is access to a stereolithographic
> rapid prototyping machine to splat together the investment casting cores.

All it takes is money.... 8^)

3DStudio MAX?  Been looking at several programs lately, but I don't recall
seeing that one.  Any information you can forward to me offline?


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 07:34:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08733;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:22:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:22:41 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3651873C.92D ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:25:00 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
References: <199811170622_MC2-6077-54AA compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eX_1O1.0.A82._IPKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24667
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

November 17, 1998

Norman Horwood wrote:
<snip>
> What you are suggesting really boils down to -  Vortex-L for 
> traditional Vortex experimental and connected stuff;  all other 
> chatter and speculation can go to the multitude of web alt lists 
> already set up for just that flaming jun... er discussion.

Leaving aside judgements on what constitutes "junk":
Wasn't this the intent of Vortex-B set up by Beaty? Except nobody seemed
to want their immortal words posted on a vaporous List. Perhaps a
temporary or limited archival opportunity for Vortex-B may prove
attractive for freedom of input. Then those who value their input and
exchanges could access these posts and archive it permanently themselves
to their own library.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 07:42:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15435;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:39:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:39:23 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:35:14 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Another extraordinary claim from Swa
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811171038_MC2-6088-1200 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"0c_nP.0.wm3.hYPKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24668
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Mitchell Swartz writes:

     Jed Rothwell should try READING Fusion Technology where we have
     published in that peer-reviewed journal published by the American
     Nuclear Society

Publishing is laudable, but the true measure of a scientific accomplishment is
replication. Until these results are replicated, they cannot be believed.


     And they can get the vortex archives where numerous references have been
     given, even though ignored by Rothwell.

Before I posted the message, I reviewed the archives. Numerous references have
been given, but no description of the device or quantitative data. Swartz does
not respond properly to serious inquiries. He obfuscates instead. When you ask
a scientist like Storms, Miles, or Mizuno for information, he responds
promptly, quantitatively and in as much detail as you require. Witness the
recent exchanges between Storms and Blue. It would take Swartz only a moment
to clarify the issues here, yet he will not do it.


     Jed Rothwell again demonstrates that he is a manipulative liar, who
     continues to turn vortex into his personal attack-forum.

Please! Make that: an impersonal, equal opportunity attack-forum.  I treat
evasive double talk from skeptics and true believers alike with equal
impartiality. (Anyone who believes a result which is not yet been verified or
replicated is a "true believer" by definition. Especially his own result!)
Nobody can accuse me of being nice to people who are nominally on my side.


     Jed Rothwell once again demonstrates that his head unfortunately remains
     quite firmly up his own anus, while he apparently tries to learn
     'science' from his Britannica CDROM.

Ignoring the invective I must say the Britannica CDROM is much improved over
the 1970s printed version, and it costs only $100! Is a fine source of
accurate information, although I have some nits to pick with the section on
Japanese grammar, and it always answers your questions. It never obfuscates.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 07:43:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15442;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:39:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:39:24 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:34:52 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199811171038_MC2-6088-11FF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tx2_z.0.8n3.hYPKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24669
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Norman Horwood writes:

     What you are suggesting really boils down to -  Vortex-L for traditional
     Vortex experimental and connected stuff;  all other chatter and
     speculation can go to the multitude of web alt lists already set up for
     just that flaming jun... er discussion.

Exactly! It would be a minor change to the present structure, yet it would be
beneficial and long overdue I think. It would not be "severe" after all.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 07:54:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21828;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:52:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:52:36 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36518E1D.E6F ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:54:21 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
References: <005001be1226$354dc920$88b4bfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pQo9d1.0.-K5.4lPKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24670
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 17, 1998

Vortex, Fred Sparber responded:

> >Wonder what might happen with two jets of D2O, each carrying opposite
> >charges, are turned to each other?
> 
> Getting close to "Colliding Beam" technology, Akira. 

Yea. The thinking is in line. 

Now get rid of the oxygen, use liquid deuterium at super high pressure,
let it carry opposing charges, then collide it with each other. I.E.,
let the 'beam' be deuterium atoms and not some nuclear particle. Now I
wonder what will happen. If liquid deuterium is too difficult, use
charged super-cooled gas. And if it works, it minimizes or eliminate
reliance on the Palladium solid state effect to get fusion. Also less
chances of transmutations (?).

>Also it might get interesting to hit a Boron 10-Carbide target with a 
>Jet of D2O, which would allow a Fissioning of Boron 10 with any 
>low-energy-spallation neutrons that come off the Deuterium.

Why not? But if that works, wouldn't it make for a "dirtier" reaction?

I guess this can be considered on-topic since we are talking about
vortex related (high pressure stream of --) technology.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 08:31:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04619;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:29:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:29:27 -0800
MR-Received: by mta SOCCER; Relayed; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:15:02 -0500 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:28:47 -0500 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:51:55 -0500 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Furnace Test
To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>, vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E1835ZXQTG2TIO*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:15:00 -0500 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
UA-content-id: E1835ZXQTG2TIO
X400-MTS-identifier: [;20511171118991/3353340 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"lPJse.0.481.cHQKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24671
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed and company,

Dumb question time.

Have you tried drawing "X" units of water into identical containers.  A unit 
being defined as the amount of water needed to run the system.

Then in fixed increments of time running the system using these stored water 
units.  Then run the same series of tests, but shake the water up before each 
test.  Run it again, but this time keep the water shielded from sunlight, and so 
on.

Another dumb question.

Maybe it's not the water, maybe it is the location.  Mount this device in a 
truck, get it working in the GA shop, and start driving.  When, or if, it stops 
working, make a mark on the map.  The next day drive in a different direction, 
when it stops, make another mark, and so on.  Maybe we are dealing with a 
geographical/magnetic/gravitational/whatever anomaly.

Bill
webriggs concentric.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 09:24:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24830;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:20:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:20:40 -0800
Message-ID: <365245B2.5F58 ca-ois.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:57:38 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Test#2 - Ignore
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OIKMy1.0.q36.e1RKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24672
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Test Message # 2

Jim Ostrowski


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 09:24:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25446;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:21:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:21:47 -0800
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: <3651B08E.6BAD2E0D css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:21:18 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
References: <199811170622_MC2-6077-54A9 compuserve.com>
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 JAA25423
Resent-Message-ID: <"M6WxC.0.WD6.h2RKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24673
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman Horwood wrote:
> Are you referring to the vena contracta

Yes, that is what I was refering to.  Sometimes the path between the brain and
fingers isn't as good as it should be.  8^)

> In any case I would have thought that
> there would be quite enough waste energy in the nozzle friction to prevent
> freezing, even if they used sapphire.

I believe a laminar boundary forms at the nozzle wall eliminating most of it.  I
could be wrong, but it would seem to me that the wear profile would be too high
otherwise.  I will have to dust of the fluid dynamics book before I stick my
foot in any deeper...  ha ha ha. 

I do recall one hell of a charge can build up if the nozzle if not properly
grounded though.  Thankfully, my absent mindedness never gets in the way of
remembering all the neat ways to get myself killed...  8^)
 

-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 10:02:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA07069;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:00:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:00:01 -0800
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: <3651B980.699B0678 css.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:59:28 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
References: <199811170622_MC2-6077-54AA compuserve.com> <3651873C.92D@ix.netcom.com>
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 JAA06581
Resent-Message-ID: <"mkotf.0.Jk1.XcRKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24674
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

aki ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Leaving aside judgements on what constitutes "junk":
> Wasn't this the intent of Vortex-B set up by Beaty? Except nobody seemed
> to want their immortal words posted on a vaporous List. Perhaps a
> temporary or limited archival opportunity for Vortex-B may prove
> attractive for freedom of input. Then those who value their input and
> exchanges could access these posts and archive it permanently themselves
> to their own library.

Realistically, you can divide the list topics up all you want, but most of us
info-junkies will subscribe to all of them anyway.  Because of that, very few
will enjoy any haven from list abusers.  The challenge will be keeping topics on
the correct list and keeping a close watch on them for when they start to
devolve.  In time, cross posting may again become a problem so a firm policy and
clear guidelines will be required.  Self discipline no longer seems to be a
viable opinion for a select few, so like it or not, some will have to have their
posting privileges temporarily revoked to cool down from time to time.  Rules
are meaningless without consequences.

There is an up side however.  If a structure is created as Bill proposed and
similar to what I volunteered last night, we may be able to encourage some key
elements to come back to the list.  Their participation may be isolated to a
very specific, low traffic corner of the Vortex spectrum, but at minimum they
would be around for any severe number crunching or expert technological input.  
This is critically important and sorely missed.  Selective subscription options
would spared them the current full bandwidth volume or what might be expected
in, say the "Brainstorming" section, where any crackpot idea could be proposed
(like most of mine... ha ha ha).

I say we try it and see what happens.  I am willing to suffer at the hands of
the abusers if a situation can be created that does not chase off the talent. 
We can always change the list structure back if no benefit is realized.

Just some thoughts.  Hopefully they are constructive.


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
    DNA and data contained herein presented in good faith 
    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 11:45:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08059;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:43:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:43:02 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117144203.0068b9cc pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:42:03 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Test message
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DTq1d.0.rz1.67TKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24675
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Message from my other e-mail account. I've been dragged, kicking and
screaming, into the 1990s by Win 98.

I am changing over to this new e-mail address: JedRothwell infinite-energy.com
Please update your records. I will drop the old email address in six months
or so.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 11:59:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA14069;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:57:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:57:05 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:49:10 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: HEY!!!  Severe Vortex-L changes
In-Reply-To: <199811162215_MC2-6071-1776 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981117144744.23013A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"1zIw62.0.kR3.GKTKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24676
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo and Bill,

	I am trying to follow this thread and it would be very sad to me 
to have the core of Vo lost to us.   

			JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 12:10:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA19777;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:07:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:07:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199811172007.OAA04292 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:05:47 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Test#2 - Ignore
Resent-Message-ID: <"60we72.0.xq4.GUTKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24677
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Test Message # 2
>
>Jim Ostrowski

***{Hi, Jim. Does this mean you have figured out why your messages have
been bouncing? If so, I am a bit curious as to the explanation. --MJ}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 12:17:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22394;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:12:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:12:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117151129.00687008 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:11:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Test again
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dKXoE.0.mT5.-YTKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24678
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>From itty-bitty computer. Sorry about this noise folks . . .

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 13:21:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16501;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:13:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:13:16 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27797c35687 [208.228.222.15]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:19:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Leonids
Resent-Message-ID: <"2sBjP3.0.l14.hRUKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24679
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:51 AM 11/17/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Anyone see any good Leonid meteors?

I saw about 2 a minute the night before last.  Last night at midnight here
in Palmer Alaska it was at a disappointing rate of about one per five
minutes.  Nothing spectacular.  The gold color was unusual.  This morning
the sky was overcast.  8^(

I had heard that live pictures would be available (but didn't find them) on:

<http://www.leonids.com>

Other info of special interest to SETI affectionados:

<http://leonids.arc.nasa.gov/>

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 13:48:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28912;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:45:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:45:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117164239.00689668 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:42:39 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-kKMS1.0.d37.hvUKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24680
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Steck writes:

     Self discipline no longer seems to be a viable opinion for a select few,
     so like it or not, some will have to have their posting privileges
     temporarily revoked to cool down from time to time.  Rules are
     meaningless without consequences.

Oh, I do not think the situation is so dire, and I do not think anyone needs
to be punished or reprimanded. The other day I thought was a good idea to shut
up Mitchell Jones for a while, but I think a second list devoted to gab is a
better option. All we have to do with split the list into content and gab. The
way my computer is organized I can automatically vector everything from one
list straight into the garbage can -- no muss, no fuss, like tossing out the
junk mail when you come home from work. My wife knows to separate out the
bills before I see the mail, or I will toss out everything indiscriminately. I
am lazy, y'see. I want the computer to separate wheat from chaff.

The other reason, as I said earlier, is when people ask me where to find
information on cold fusion I want to point them to a list with serious
scientific content sans silly stuff. It is undignified!
 

     Realistically, you can divide the list topics up all you want, but most
     of us info-junkies will subscribe to all of them anyway.  Because of
     that, very few will enjoy any haven from list abusers.

I get instant haven at the press of a button. I would no more waste time
reading about invisible Martians then I would read a tabloid newspaper left on
a bus station bench.

Mitchell Jones himself writes:

     And, of course, nobody in this group is childish, and so this will not
     be a problem, right?

It was never a problem before you arrived, Mitch. Except there was another guy
who kept accusing me of keeping secret files about people's sex life. That's
downright crazy. You are ornery, not crazy. A little overwrought and humorless
too, I dare say. I talk about capturing ground hogs in a straw hat and you
accuse me of not taking the conversation seriously. Good grief! Lighten up!
Why would you expect me, of all people, to take a conversation about invisible
aliens in Arizona seriously? Heck, I laugh at funerals. I had a rollicking
good time at Chris Tinsley's funeral, and I did not even get as drunk as the
rest of the participants.


     Indeed, we are all sheep here, waiting to be led.

If you would argue over such trivial issues, you need to get a life! If Bill
splits the list, you be a good boy and post to the right side and all will be
well.


     You guys are hell bent on tossing out a system that was brilliantly
     conceived and very well executed

By us! We conceived it. We executed it.


     And to top it all off, you dare to accuse *me* of trying to destroy this
     list? Ha! I'm rolling on the floor laughing. 

This is not a dare or an accusation, and you should get up off the floor,
brush yourself off, and get a life. Stop acting like a ninny. You are all
worked up about nothing. You should save your passion, anger and high dudgeon
for issues that matter. You are as bad as Mitch Swartz who has a conniption
fit when an innocuous soul like Scott Little asks him many watts his device
produces. As if it mattered! As if anyone cares!

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 13:59:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00923;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:55:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:55:59 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117165751.007fccb0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:57:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Severe Vortex-L changes
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117164239.00689668 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"r5WHk3.0.AE.j3VKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24681
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



At 04:42 PM 11/17/98 -0500, you wrote:

>You are as bad as Mitch Swartz who has a conniption
>fit when an innocuous soul like Scott Little asks him many watts his device
>produces. As if it mattered! As if anyone cares!
>
>- Jed

 
 Jed Rothwell = IDIOT & LIAR 
 
 Take your BS to spf from where you cower as Mitchell Jones
correctly stated, or to vortex-B where your nonsense belongs
as Bill Beaty requested.

 You, Rothwell, are a fraud who has hurt cold fusion internationally.

     

 
 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 14:14:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06358;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:12:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:12:38 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117171445.007feb00 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:14:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jed Rothwell is a liar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Njxo33.0.CZ1.MJVKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24682
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



  It is getting quite tiresome to hear (f)Rothwell 
attack cold fusioneers, including the hardworking Russ George, 
Dr. Martin Fleischmann, and so many other scientists and
inventors, when Bozo the Clown now has more believability 
than he does.


 My vote for "Flying PIG of the year" -- that is
the person who has done the most to hurt cold fusion --
is none other than: Jed Rothwell.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 14:20:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09994;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:18:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:18:52 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117161755.0069dce8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:17:55 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Experiments list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wpeSr1.0.4S2.CPVKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24683
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here's my first cut at some charter elements for my dream list.

These are just off-the-top ideas that seem important to me right now
because I'm so irritated at the present state of Vortex-L.  I would greatly
appreciate constructive comments from prospective members of the new list.
If you don't like the ideas I've presented below, please reread the very
last line and keep quiet.

Subject matter:  New Energy Experiments

A new energy experiment is one which involves a potential new energy
source.  Examples include cold fusion, novel nuclear reactors, new
developments in solar energy, zero-point energy, anomalous field
experiments (e.g. gravity modification or non-conservative EM
interactions), 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violations, etc.  

Emphasis is placed upon EXPERIMENTS. Persons performing/evaluating new
energy experiments are invited to discuss all aspects of these experiments
including hypotheses, design, execution, and results.

Theoretical discussions are forbidden except where directly applicable to
existing experiments.  Pure theory is strictly forbidden.

Required Etiquette:

It is assumed that members of the list are busy experimentalists that have
very little spare time.  Therefore concision and brevity in the posts are
desirable.

Off-topic posts are forbidden.  

Aimless on-topic posts are also forbidden.  For example, do not post the
URL of a new web site that you think is cool or even useful to
experimentalists.  Save such information until a time that it can be
applied to an actual experiment under discussion.

General:

The function of this list is to provide a forum for new energy
experimentalists to discuss all aspects of their experimentation for the
purpose of facilitating their research.

The most valuable function of the list is to share experimental results and
to promote replication of interesting results so that real progress can be
made in new energy research.

Another important function of the list is to provide an expert advisory for
persons needing assistance with their experiments.  To this end, it is of
vital importance that the list membership contain a large population of
highly qualified scientists.  As a general rule, highly qualified
scientists are also very busy scientists and many of these people have been
driven off from Vortex-L by the sheer volume of rambling speculation,
unsubstantiated theories, items of no particular interest, and off-topic
discussions.  Therefore it is of utmost importance that the Experiments
list be LOW-TRAFFIC.  In view of the actual number of new energy
experiments going on at any one time and the typical duration of these
experiments, the Experiments list should go days at a time without ANY
messages being posted to it.

Enforcement:

Recent developments on Vortex-L prove that it can be necessary to forcibly
remove list members that repeatedly violate the rules.  The Experiments
list owner will issue warning(s) after such violations occur and will
excommunicate incorrigible list members.  The list owner will act as a
benevolent dictator in these matters because votes or public opinion polls
would violate the low-traffic requirement of the list.

Fairness:

If you don't like the rules of this list, don't join this list.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 15:36:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15768;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:34:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b277b5f0cb54 [12.64.4.56]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117161755.0069dce8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:28:00 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Resent-Message-ID: <"eZSvN2.0.Fs3.BWWKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24684
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott -

This looks to me like a refined restatement of the 2 list idea, like Jed
said and I commented on. IMHO, it's a good idea if the current setup isn't
serving the purpose.

The point could be made that this is already the weay things are set up:
Vortex-L and Vortex-B.

Why doesn't it work? Shouldn't we all just volunteer then to take all this
over to B? Is B up? I'll try to send a test message.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 15:53:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18379;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:50:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b277b8b77255 [12.64.4.35]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117161755.0069dce8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:44:06 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Resent-Message-ID: <"zf9yr2.0.5V4.LlWKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24685
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Ok, my vortex-b test message bounced. Anyone know the correct address of B?

By the way, freenrg-L is buzzing along nicely since a recent rabble rouser
got bored and left after nearly blowing out that list. They're over there
actively discussing Newman moter spark gaps and stuff, getting excited over
comparisons of EXPERIMENTAL(!) results in a low-traffic no-fluff thread.
That's the way it ought to be.

Know what my only problem is with freenrg? The name. I think it might be
steering professional people away since "free energy" has such blatantly
crackpot anti-credibility connotations.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 16:03:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21750;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:02:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:02:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b277b530d54d [208.228.222.182]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:05:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Resent-Message-ID: <"VKvCd.0.mJ5.PwWKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24686
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 4:17 PM 11/17/98, Scott Little wrote:
>Here's my first cut at some charter elements for my dream list.
[snip good stuff]

In addition to adding donation info, subscription/list management info, the
"ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING" rule, and the "not include any other email list
in the TO line or the CC line" rule, something along the lines of vortex
rule 2 would be good, possibly under "Required Etiquette:".  Here is vortex
rule 2:

"2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and
   namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden.  The tone
   should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
   Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having
   some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave
   in disgust.  But if your mind is open, hop on board!  Help us test
   "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away.
   (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND
   THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.)"

I especially like the statement: "Ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling are
forbidden".

Some additionl ideas along this line: "This is not a debating list.
Protracted debates should be taken offline or to another list upon public
request of any subscriber.  Criticism should be constructive where
possible, and directed at procedure, choice of material, etc., not directed
at a member in the form of a personal attack.  For example "Lead is a lousy
choice for anode material; use platinum," though borderline in demeanor, is
acceptable, while "Only a lousy experimentalist like you would use a lead
anode." is not.

Though this list is clearly not a replacement for vortex-L, it would be a
very welcome addition and a nice low volume alternative when time is not
available to follow vortex-L. Another big advantage would be that it might
actually be feasible to find important material in the archives without
spending days downloading, unpacking, and searching files.

I like the idea of 3 vortex lists, vortex-E for low volume experimentalist
exchanges, vortex-L as it is now, and vortex-B as it is now or otherwise
improved.  It seems that vortex-B is way underutilized, considering there
is no restriction on it at all.  If archiving is preserved for only one
list, it only makes sense that it be preserved for the low volume high
content list (vortex-E).

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 16:13:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19998;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:12:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:12:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981117161202.00a0cfb4 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: Tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:12:04 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hPifh1.0.Nu4.U3XKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24687
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 04:17 PM 11/17/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Here's my first cut at some charter elements for my dream list.

>Subject matter:  New Energy Experiments

Agreed.

>
>A new energy experiment is one which involves a potential new energy
>source.  Examples include cold fusion, novel nuclear reactors, new
>developments in solar energy, zero-point energy, anomalous field
>experiments (e.g. gravity modification or non-conservative EM
>interactions), 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violations, etc.  

Agreed.


>Emphasis is placed upon EXPERIMENTS. Persons performing/evaluating new
>energy experiments are invited to discuss all aspects of these experiments
>including hypotheses, design, execution, and results.
>
>Theoretical discussions are forbidden except where directly applicable to
>existing experiments.  Pure theory is strictly forbidden.

Unfortunately, this one won't work because pure theory is always directed
toward understanding experiments.  However, I get your drift as some of the
pure theory seems off base.  I know that few people understand how the
theoretical discourse I provide from time to time applies directly to
experiments.  And it isn't possible to lay out the whole universe in a post.  

I would say, "pure theory not supported by observation" of one kind or
another, should be banned.  ie, speculation that isn't founded in
observational information.  I usually try to provide observational evidence
for the processes I think are taking place at the sub atomic scale.  Though
few people on the list are interested in the astro physics phenomena, the
fact is, those phenomena are driven by processes we are studying, in many
cases.  For example, supernovae are driven by spallation of heavy nuclei,
as are probably CF experiments where isotope changes in the Pd are observed.

So I would say, theoretical concepts should be tied to experiment or other
observation, and be applicable to new energy research.  

>Required Etiquette:
>
>It is assumed that members of the list are busy experimentalists that have
>very little spare time.  Therefore concision and brevity in the posts are
>desirable.

Desired yes, demanded no.  When a post is too long, and I am not that
interested, I skip it, scan it or whatever.

>Off-topic posts are forbidden.  
>
>Aimless on-topic posts are also forbidden.  

I completely agree.  And especially the back and forth between two guys,
where the response is "Yeah, thanks" or other non-informative comments sent
as acknowledgement to some other post.  If you want to send something like
that, just send it to the person directly and not to the entire list.


For example, do not post the
>URL of a new web site that you think is cool or even useful to
>experimentalists.  Save such information until a time that it can be
>applied to an actual experiment under discussion.

I disagree.  New web sites are interesting information that is useful.
However, any post of a web site should say, "see this site, it is about
................"  ie, it should explain what is over there so we don't
have to waste time wondering.  Actually, if I am not told, I just dump it.


>
>General:
>
>The function of this list is to provide a forum for new energy
>experimentalists to discuss all aspects of their experimentation for the
>purpose of facilitating their research.
>
>The most valuable function of the list is to share experimental results and
>to promote replication of interesting results so that real progress can be
>made in new energy research.
>
>Another important function of the list is to provide an expert advisory for
>persons needing assistance with their experiments.  To this end, it is of
>vital importance that the list membership contain a large population of
>highly qualified scientists.  As a general rule, highly qualified
>scientists are also very busy scientists and many of these people have been
>driven off from Vortex-L by the sheer volume of rambling speculation,
>unsubstantiated theories, items of no particular interest, and off-topic
>discussions.  Therefore it is of utmost importance that the Experiments
>list be LOW-TRAFFIC.  In view of the actual number of new energy
>experiments going on at any one time and the typical duration of these
>experiments, the Experiments list should go days at a time without ANY
>messages being posted to it.

I agree.  I post maybe a couple messages a week because most of the
discourse has been rambling on and not experimental in nature for the past
many months.  I read vortex messages about one every three days, even
though we get in 30+ per day.  Most of them I just delete unopened.

>
>Enforcement:
>
>Recent developments on Vortex-L prove that it can be necessary to forcibly
>remove list members that repeatedly violate the rules.  The Experiments
>list owner will issue warning(s) after such violations occur and will
>excommunicate incorrigible list members.  The list owner will act as a
>benevolent dictator in these matters because votes or public opinion polls
>would violate the low-traffic requirement of the list.
>
>Fairness:
>
>If you don't like the rules of this list, don't join this list.

I'd switch.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 16:19:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21661;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:17:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:17:21 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b277c0757b18 [12.21.208.78]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:24:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Resent-Message-ID: <"c8MeH1.0.FI5.G8XKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24688
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I just wrote: "Though this list is clearly not a replacement for vortex-L,
it would be a very welcome addition and a nice low volume alternative when
time is not available to follow vortex-L."

"Alternative" is maybe not a good choice of words. I would expect that
reading a serious list (called in this post vortex-E) would take far less
time than reading that list plus vortex-L, but individual posts would be
far more meaty and time consuming, and that posting, when done, would also
involve considerably more care and thought.  The list should not have a
"chatty" feel.

Actually, considering the wide open nature of vortex-L, a better choice of
list combinations for the experimentalist with a lot of time might be
freenrg-l plus vortex-E.  I don't recall if freenrg-l has an archive.
Though freenrg-l has an explicitly experimental focus, which some of the
members attempt to defend, the debates tend to get out of hand there, and I
recall days with more than 50 posts, largely content free or error filled.
It also gave me the impression that it is more hobbyist oriented.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 16:40:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29579;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:36:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:36:58 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b277c7190a97 [12.21.208.78]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:43:30 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: vortex-l is just fine as is
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bb18M1.0.yD7.fQXKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24689
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It seems that vortex-l is just fine exactly as is.  It provides room for
theory, debate, and most any scientific topic.  If an alternative list for
serious experimentalists is formed, that would probably not affect the
subscribership of vortex-l very much at all, especially in view of their
departure rate.  It may mean a great deal to subscribers of the new list,
however.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 17:09:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01736;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811180057.TAA17620 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:01:04 -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: <"jVUMo3.0.2R.qpXKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24690
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Scott,

I like your reversion to the fundamental idea of the list for the two main
reasons that it will attract serious experimenters and support those who
need their advice (like me), and who are simply informed by the manner in
which ideas are expressed.  

I particularly agree with your last line, as much as I hate to see anyone
squelched, some stuff should not be tolerated.  If some see it as
intolerance or suppression or discrimination (a word that has come to mean
almost nothing), I defend their right to form their misinformed opinion.  

I take my freedom of expression within a freedom of association.  I
consider it a priviledge to be able to have access to disciplined and
creative minds that wish to focus on such important problems, and who
generally demonstrate real consideration to well-intentioned, if misguided,
individuals.

We could swing too far the other way.  This forum does not have the form of
a peer-reviewed journal and cannot be as rigorous in its style, though
worthy as a goal it is.  People will continue to post stuff that would be
better ignored, but it will goad someone who will respond.  That is, unless
we have really strict oversight, which is a real burden on Bill Beaty and
hopefully unnecessary.  Nobody wants to get hit with the blame stick and
most of us, most of the time, don't like to wield it.  When do you ignore
an irritation, hoping it will go away, and when do you do something about
it?  The problem is the tragedy of the commons.  Regulation is no
substitute for good will.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 17:10:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA02230;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981117200045.00a3ed00 inforamp.net>
X-Sender: quinney inforamp.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:00:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117161755.0069dce8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"06StX3.0.gY.TrXKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24691
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

My 2cts = If the software allows:
Rather than temporary excommunication from E, why not just send the
offender off to stand in the corner for a duration. They can hear, but
cannot speak. 

Best,
Colin Quinney

At 04:17 PM 11/17/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>Enforcement:
>
>Recent developments on Vortex-L prove that it can be necessary to forcibly
>remove list members that repeatedly violate the rules.  The Experiments
>list owner will issue warning(s) after such violations occur and will
>excommunicate incorrigible list members.  The list owner will act as a
>benevolent dictator in these matters because votes or public opinion polls
>would violate the low-traffic requirement of the list.
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 17:30:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17201;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:27:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:27:08 -0800
Reply-To: <reed zenergy.com>
From: "RNHuish" <reed zenergy.com>
To: "Vortex-L (E-mail)" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Dynamometer
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:20:36 -0700
Message-ID: <003301be1292$910c9a40$3f5b96d1 ns5.access1.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
Resent-Message-ID: <"M0xDK2.0.dC4.i9YKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24692
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Our company recently purchased a 50 HP dynamometer if anyone has a motor or
engine which needs to be tested.

- Reed

------------------------------------------
Reed N Huish, President & CEO
Zenergy Corporation
5025 N Central Ave #414, Phoenix AZ 85012
Facsimile: 602.530.2549
Direct Email: mailto:reed zenergy.com
General Email: mailto:info zenergy.com
Internet: http://zenergy.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 17:48:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24000;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:46:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:46:06 -0800
Message-ID: <365227EC.283D earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:50:36 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Carr: Blue:  band state theory  11.17.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YqvG9.0.ws5.TRYKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24693
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Carr: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 11.16.98
      Date:  Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:09:44 -0500
      From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Jim,

    I noted the following comment:

>>To make a Born-Oppenheimer separation and then use that
>>as a justification for keeping other interactions out
>>of the problem is, I would say, very circular reasoning.
>
> Quite so.  The interactions are a given.


     This gets to an important point that I have not emphasized.  When
coherent processes are possible, Born-Oppenheimer separability simply
can not be assumed from the outset.  Only when very specific
interactions are given, can this be done.  We have specified the
interactions that preserve separability.  If these interactions are
iterated, the separability is preserved.  And because the interactions
are also functionals of the assumed wave functions, the associated
interaction, potentially, can be highly non-linear.  In this context,
the following can be stated:  the assumed interactions are potentially
highly non-linear, but they possess fixed points involving
Born-Oppenheimer separable forms.  This reasoning is not circular.  It
is actually required of a self-consistent ground state that
assymptotically matches onto a state (after long time and at finite
temperature) that possesses Born-Oppenheimer separability.

>>Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
>>justify saying that everything has to remain in its
>>ground state because it's at T=0.  
>
> More importantly, you know there is motion at T=0, and 
> that must be included in the calculation above when 
> looking at the severly mixed scales of this problem.


The T=0 limit has been used throughout to draw attention to the
significance of resonant coherent interaction from periodic order.  At
finite temperature, as I mention in my most recent post to Dick, a
number of factors enter.  A potentially key point, however, in this
context, is that as far as order with respect to nuclear potential goes,
all that is required is that the ion band state D+ nuclei "observe" a
self-induced periodic potential (as defined by the time evolution of the
initial D+ ion band state with itself).
 
> James A. Carr   <jac scri.fsu.edu>     | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time.

SCOTT CHUBB

Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory 11.16.98
      Date:  Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:49:01 -0500
      From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net
Dick,

     I appreciate your enthusiasm in debating Ed Storms about our model.
But I wish when you would do it, you would consider my comments, prior
to asserting assumptions, based on the on-going discussion, that you
have made about the model and then attributing them to the model.  In
particular, for example, there is one important point of confusion that
you seem to have about one very important assumption of the model that
has led you astray, and this has led to a number of wild assertions that
simply are unfounded.  

     The assumption  that you make is that we are assuming throughout
that the nuclear potential and electromagnetic potentials are separable
and that the associated eigenfunctions are separable.  This, apparently,
has led you to assume that to have Bloch function nuclear states, it is
required that the nuclear potential be responsible for this behavior. 
At least, this is my reading of a number of your comments.

     The assumption of the model is that assymptotically, at finite
temperature and after long intervals of time, the nuclear and
electromagnetic potentials become separable.  This is embodied in the
assertion that the wave functions approach Born-Oppenheimer separable
forms.  The remaining, relevant assumption is that in first
approximation, coupling between the electromagnetic and nuclear
potentials (which breaks separability) occur through processes in which
the solid "recoils" (where the generalized form of the term is used)
through resonant processes that shift the electrostatic zero of the
solid relevant to its value prior to the recoil process.  These
assumptions are general properties of coherence through periodically
induced resonant processes.  Empirically, the associated physics was
found to be necessary to describe low (and finite) temperature electron
conduction.  But the associated physics is considerably more general
than what is required to understand electron conduction.

     When this form of interaction is present, the "potential" (actually
the self-energy associated with a highly non-linear process) that
preserves the ground state and the associated dynamics is periodic at
points where deuterons are present, both with respect to the separation
and center of mass variables.  And this holds both for the nuclear and
electromagnetic potentials.  The reason this is true is that by
construction, in order to have Born-Oppenheimer separability apply
assymptotically, the model is required to preserve this behavior.  (And
in fact, the associated interactions have been selected in order for
this to be the case.)  An important point is that this by no means that
the entire potential is required to be periodic.

     On the other hand, even in the presence of disorder, the physics of
resonant coherence through periodic order is still present.  This fact
seems to  be unknown to you.
 
     Having made these preliminary comments, I feel compelled to respond
to your comments to Ed Storms about our model. 

>> Without getting into details, Scott is suggesting that deuterons can act
>> like waves in a lattice.  They can act like waves when passed through a
>> diffraction grating as single particles.  If the lattice looks like a
>> diffraction grating because of the periodicity, why would this effect
>> not be seen there?
>
>I fear you have failed to grasp the significance of what Scott is
>proposing within the context of a real physical system, something which
>I assert does not and cannot exist as proposed.  The diffraction grating
>is an appropriate analogy only if the periodicity actually exists.  

This is true, but periodicity is only required with respect to the
deuteron potential, not with respect to the entire potential, and it
need only be approximate periodicity (i.e., disorder can be included as
a perturbation).

>The Chubb theory starts with an appeal to the analogy of conduction
>electrons in a periodic lattice.  

This is your reading.  The Chubb theory did not begin here.  The Chubb
theory began with the known quantum anomalies of hydrogen in Pd, PdD,
Nb, and Ni.

>In the case of those electrons the theory does describe real phenomena
because >certain conditions in that
>lattice are well approximated by the Chubb picture, namely the electrons
>move essentially as free particles and can interact only in a limited
>way with other electrons that remain bound to the atoms of the lattice. 

The electron theory makes use of a fundamental result of solid state
physics.  The Chubb theory began from the same starting point.  But it
was also realized at an early stage that this fundamental result
(Resonant coherence from periodic order) has important implications that
go well beyond the electron theory.

>The model may even have limited applicability for some deuterons in a
>fully loaded lattice -- the so called ion band state.
>However Scott Chubb overextended the conduction-electron model to
>involve some other degrees of freedom, namely the internal motions of
>the deuterons. 

See my preliminary comments.  This is your assertion.  It fails to
incorporate the model assumptions and requirements.

>In this regard there are two false notions that come into
>play.  First is the notion that the temperature T=0 condition applies,
>in any sense. 

The importance of resonant coherent interaction through periodic order
and its impact on well-known solid state phenomena at finite temperature
illustrates that the starting point is sound.  The theory has been
extended to finite temperature, and the predominant physical effects are
present there as well.  A  potentially key point is that in the
micron-sized crystals that are probably relevant, the finite temperature
effects (which involve phonon coupling) often (through non-linear
coupling between the electrostatic zero of the solid and the phonon
spectra) are irrelevant.

>It must be noted that each degree of freedom has a
>temperature to be considered.  There is not an overall temperature
>unless all degrees of freedom are coupled.  

>What Scott Chubb is
>attempting to hide behind a seemingly harmless assumption of T=0 is the
>notion that all the deuterons are in a perfectly ordered state.  

See last comment; note comments about resonant coherent interactions.


>In pratical terms that means that all deuterons have their spins alligned.
>However, in the real world we don't have a lattice at T=0.  The lattice
>temperature is actually 300 K, 

In a thermalized lattice, this may be true.  In point of fact, at finite
temperature, an ensemble averaging takes place.  Within this averaging,
important coherent domains may participate; and this is one of the more
important reasons that the framework involving resonant coherent
interaction resulting from periodic order has consequence.  A second
important point is that technically only the D+ ion band states need
have nuclei that are ordered.  This is because only these states have
significant overlap with each other in regions where the strong
potential can be affected by the overlap.

>more than enough to totally disorder the
>deuteron spins.  Even if the lattice were cooled to shall we say 4 K the
>deuterons would remain totally disordered because the energy spectrum
>for the various spin allignments is very, very low.

See last comment.

>The problem with the Chubb picture does not end there, however.  Having
>finessed the question of nuclear ordering, we move on to the assumed
>model for the strong interaction potential that is provided by the
>periodic lattice.  Because of the chosen formalism it gets difficult to
>see what Chubb is proposing, but he essentially is saying that the
>deuteron can come apart leaving two bits to experience a periodic
>lattice separately. 

Wrong-this is your assumption!  And it is here, I feel that you should
have looked at my last mailing, prior to making your comment.

>One of those bits is a virtual neutron.  It can't be
>a real, free neutron, because the deuteron is bound by 2.225 MeV -- not
>something that gives a hoot about the chemical environment, no matter
>what Ed Storms wishes. 

There are no sufficiently long-lived virtual neutrons to have any
consequence.  The associated processes are excited states relative to
the dominant, resonant coherent interaction that is used.

>So the real clincher is just what Scott Chubb
>assumes that this virtual neutron encounters at distances a kazillion
>times its normal range of travel.  

Please, desist from misquoting the theory.  This is entirely your view.
And it seems to be based on the assumption that the nuclear and
electromagnetic interactions are separable (as would be the wave
functions).


>He assumes that it encounters NOTHING
>but still sees a periodic potential.  By the way Scott Chubb is still
>attempting to explain cold fusion, which Ed Storms and I have now agreed
>does not occur.

I simply am at a loss to understand how you can misquote both of us.
Perhaps the dialogue has degenerated sufficiently that further
discussion is not warranted.  I hope that this is not the case.

>
>So it's an (n, alpha) reaction is it?  We'll see how well that notion
>flies.
>
>Dick Blue
>

As I said, I appreciate your enthusiasm.  Please try to be patient
enough to read our responses to your queries before you misquote the
results, based on your own assumptions.  I do believe your persistence
is beneficial.  However, for example, I do have a job, with outside
responsibilities, and can not always answer you as rapidly as might seem
appropriate.

Also, I really think you should look at my last response to you before
you respond to the present comments.  (Note that in the context of my
last response my comment about how interactions occur can be phrased in
a simpler way:

the D+ ion band state nuclei "see" a periodic potential (or
approximately a periodic potential) consisting of both a strong force
portion and an electromagnetic portion, despite the fact that the
remaining entities in the lattice, in first approximation, are not
required to "see" such a potential.  The reason for this is that only
the D+ ion band state nuclei have appreciable overlap in regions where
strong interaction can take place, and these states are periodic.)

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 17:53:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26074;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:49:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:49:13 -0800
From: VCockeram aol.com
Message-ID: <b43fd50f.3652234f aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:30:55 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Computer Backups
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
Resent-Message-ID: <"iINms1.0.GN6.PUYKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24694
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All.
Somewhat off topic but just would like to pass on some good info.
I recently purchased a Hewlett Packard Colorado 8Gb Tape drive ($279.00 at
Compusa) and am thrilled with the ease of use and performance. It's an
internal drive and attaches to the EIDE bus. Performance on my system is 30 to
35 Mb per minute. The software provided allows creation of a disaster recovery
set consisting of a bootable floppy and a complete system backup tape. 
Over the weekend I made the mistake of installing Internet Explorer Version
4.01. After installing I had a desktop full of indecipherable icons, an AOL
system that would instantly crash when starting, inability to open local  .GIF
files and a system that would not do a clean shutdown! 
Fortunately, I had made a full backup before installing this piece of
bloatware.  I booted up the floppy, typed format C: and when that completed,
typed in Recover.  In 20 minutes my C drive was completely restored.

I will recommend this beautiful piece of hardware to anyone who wants a way to
protect the files on their system. It's well worth the price.
Disclaimer: I am not in anyway connected with Hewlett Packard or CompUSA.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 18:05:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31871;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:03:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:03:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981117205749.0068a558 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:57:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Experiments list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WC3fW2.0.ln7.fhYKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24695
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Scott Little's proposals seem a little restrictive to me, but it does not
matter as long as a parallel information channel will be available. I think of
the second channel as the hallway outside the lecture hall where people
shmooze during physics conferences.

I think we should mull this over for a week, or maybe try out a variety of
configurations and rules, to see how they feel. Let us remain flexible.

Scott writes:

     Theoretical discussions are forbidden except where directly applicable
     to existing experiments.  Pure theory is strictly forbidden.

I never read the theory postings because I do not understand them, but I think
this is a bad idea. The theory people need a quiet place to talk too. Why not
here? There are only a few serious theory papers on Vortex.


     Off-topic posts are forbidden.  

It is difficult to define what is off-topic, and threads will inevitably
drift. I would rephrase this: off-topic posts are discouraged. If two or three
people ask, the thread should be moved to Channel Two.


     For example, do not post the URL of a new web site that you think is
     cool or even useful to experimentalists.  Save such information until a
     time that it can be applied to an actual experiment under discussion.

Too restrictive, I think. Many experiments are underway and under discussion
simultaneously. Ed Wall alone must be conducting five of them, and I am
writing about at least two. At the moment, Ed is thinking about vacuum pumps
and I am wondering if we can salvage Ralph Pope's used Pitot tube array
anemometer by next Friday.


     Therefore it is of utmost importance that the Experiments list be
     LOW-TRAFFIC.

Why? I can read a substantial chunk of two newspapers at breakfast. I find a
rapid burst of ideas intellectually stimulating, even when I can barely
understand many of them. That's why I read the Scientific American and the
lovelorn advice column in of the Japanese newspapers. It broadens the mind.


     In view of the actual number of new energy experiments going on at any
     one time and the typical duration of these experiments, the Experiments
     list should go days at a time without ANY messages being posted to it.

What is the point of this? The world would be much better off if there were
hundreds of experiments underway, and a vigorous ferment of new ideas. The
heyday of microcomputer software was around 1984. At that time, every issue of
Byte magazine was a feast of new ideas and interesting and often peculiar new
approaches. It was much more intellectually stimulating than today's staid,
All-Bill, All-The-Time world.


     The Experiments list owner will issue warning(s) after such violations
     occur and will excommunicate incorrigible list members.

Add: . . . for a couple of weeks. Let's be reasonable.

I do not like the idea of a two, three, or four channel mail list, but it
might work. If this first channel is as restrictive as Scott wants to make it,
perhaps we need a second serious channel for the theorists . . . and what
about oddballs like me? I have some important ideas about history and
business, which I write about once or twice a month. I am testing out these
ideas for longer treatment in Infinite Energy magazine. I am looking for the
audience reaction, and back-channel corrections and ideas. These short essays
are not idle chit-chat, and not easy to write. My idea for Channel 1 was to
allow anything on-topic, from experiment, to theory, to history and even
arguments over the best way to introduce the ideas to the public, and the best
strategy for revealing to the public that you have achieved thermoelectric
generation (the topic Swartz and I disagree on). That strikes me a vital
subject. I sincerely believe that if the CF scientists had presented their
achievements to the public correctly up until now, we would have cold fusion
generator prototypes by now. Most of the problems in this field stem from
botched public relations and squandered opportunities.

I would like to see that sort of thing declared on-topic, but if the person
who is paying for the listserver and the web storage space (Bill Beaty in this
case) wants to restrict topics to strictly technical issues, that's fine with
me. I know it does not cost much, but it does take some effort and money to
run a listserver, and Bill has done a great job with his occasional
light-handed interventions, so I'll go along with any rules he sets up. Or if
I won't, I'll set up my own listserver, but I would hate to see communication
Balkanized to that extent.

On a related subject, will someone please tell me via private e-mail what is
the e-mail address of the second list that Bill left open the other day for
flame-wars? Vortex-B eskimo.com? My new configuration may not be reaching it
after today's renovation.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 19:12:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24710;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:09:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:09:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199811180308.VAA13295 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:07:36 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: vortex-l is just fine as is
Resent-Message-ID: <"wgNG21.0.026.nfZKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24696
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>It seems that vortex-l is just fine exactly as is.  It provides room for
>theory, debate, and most any scientific topic.  If an alternative list for
>serious experimentalists is formed, that would probably not affect the
>subscribership of vortex-l very much at all, especially in view of their
>departure rate.  It may mean a great deal to subscribers of the new list,
>however.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{Yes, I agree, though I would tweak the vortex-l charter a bit, as
suggested earlier, to reduce the likelihood of any more divisive artillery
duels such as the one just completed. To that end, I would suggest that the
following comments be added to clarify the charter:

(1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided that
topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.

(2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that others
muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.

(3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over or
delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which are
not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting behavior
in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out of order.

Failure to make the above points crystal clear in the charter will, of
course, cause no immediate ill effects, since the need for them is now
apparent to virtually everyone. However, with the passage of time, the
membership of the group will change, and eventually a point will be reached
when a conflagration similar to the recent one will spring up again. It is
in hope of preventing that outcome that I suggest these changes.

--Mitchell Jones}***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 21:03:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10093;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:59:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:59:02 -0800
Message-Id: <365253FB.2AFB295A verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:58:35 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Computer Backups (Not on primary topic)
References: <b43fd50f.3652234f aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"U1EbE.0.dT2.LGbKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24697
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

VCockeram aol.com wrote:

> 
> All.
> Somewhat off topic but just would like to pass on some good info.
> I recently purchased a Hewlett Packard Colorado 8Gb Tape drive ($279.00 at
> Compusa) and am thrilled with the ease of use and performance.

[snip]

Alternately, I have a bad situation with a recently bought HP Colorado 5 GB tape.(external/parallel port device) 

The extremely silly and buggy tape software provided by Chienne ver 3.11 apparently working normally begun to not allow to take backups, directing you to click to the non appearing figure on the list, without any errors, notice and clues after I upgraded 

the system from Win95 to Win98.  I spend hours and hours find the problem, read the manuals for to be sure I am using the program in the order is given,  checking everything from parallel port configuration, tape conditions, connections, varieties of wind

ows configs, registry entries, resource conflicts, etc., found nothing, everything was ok. Finally, by extensive search of HP support site I found a note in a article that saying the Chienne program Ver.3.22 is needed for working under Win98. Again, by ex

tensive search, I found that there is no available update on the HP, Colorado and Chienne sites. Damn!, I required to order the new software (which is not a separate product but the specific program needed to operate the tap!
e, and not sold separately) for 30
 dollars plus shipping charge.

It is very odd that a company such HP does could not support its product it sells. The real problem lies toe Colorado and HP was unable to write windows compatible drivers for this product allowing standard windows backup utility does work. As they give a

 non-compatible hardware and drivers (which they are very odd, patchy and really problematic), user should rely to the very odd and unreliable Chienne program. (Why such a software company who could not write computer programs exist?)

Currently, I could not take backups and any failure of the system will result to a disaster.

I hope your tape was automatically sensed by windows and working comfortably.

>Disclaimer: I am not in anyway connected with Hewlett Packard or CompUSA.

I am glade that you are not connected to these companies who sells this very unfortunate product. (HP colorado 5 GB external, it takes 2 1/2 hours to backup 2 GB data when it worked under Win95)             


Tapes are tricky. Problems lies mainly, that reliable and good products are tailored for corporations, naturally pricely, and low end products which are suitable for personal use are not so good and flawless. I recommend always to bought a new released ha

rdware, not ones old than 6 months, and not to products appears to have reasonable prices by default.

> Regards,
> Vince Cockeram
> Las Vegas Nevada

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 21:07:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12593;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:05:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:05:30 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118000400.00690f1c pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:04:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WIkKb2.0.d43.PMbKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24698
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones suggests this rule:

     (1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided
     that topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.

I believe the majority and the list owner disagree with the "anything goes"
philosophy. That is what precipitated this mini-crisis. Actually, you have
done us a favor, Mitch, by bringing this crisis to a head. You force reforms
upon us which are long overdue.

I personally disagree with the "polite" idea. I have been to many physics
conferences, and the best  discussions have not always been polite.
Professional, yes, but often hard hitting. Here is something for the readers
of this forum to think about here and now, before we make any changes or
establish any new rules. The other day I posted a message with paragraphs
including:

     The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
     driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and
     not Joule heating from electrolysis. It may even mean the reactions were
     self-sustaining (either heat after death or regenerative). After all,
     what would be the point of describing a cell in which ten watts of Joule
     heating plus a half watt of cold fusion heat together drive a
     thermoelectric device? That would be a trivial accomplishment. . . .

     Unless this claim is clarified, quantified, and specific details are
     provided, I am afraid it does not mean much. Unfortunately, in the past
     when Scott Little and others have asked Swartz to clarify, he has always
     refused. He will not even tell us how many watts his devices produce,
     which is the bare minium information anyone needs to sort out a claim.
     Low power claims (below a half-watt) are dubious except when reported by
     experts like Miles, and a low power claim from an unconventional, unique
     calorimeter like Swartz's should be automatically rejected out of hand,
     by my stick-in-the-mud conventionalist standards. . . .

     In any case, if this claim is anything like it appears to be, it is
     exiting and revolutionary, and it deserves proof. It could be an
     important scientific breakthrough, and it might interest serious
     investors. Swartz denies it, but there are, in fact, many wealthy
     individuals and corporations anxious to invest in cold fusion. . . .
     However, as things stand there is no proof, and no sensible person would
     believe this claim. The ironclad standards of science must first be met:
     we must have verification and replication . . .

Would this be acceptable on Channel 1? Or does it go over the line? I'll move
it to Channel 2 if the readers demand, but more likely I will not bother to
write it in the first place, because it took some effort to compose this
message and frame it carefully, and I will not make that kind of effort for a
restricted readership, or to see it mix it in with a lot of lighthearted gab
and screwy conspiracy theories. (Of course I will be happy to talk about
catching ground hogs in hats on Channel 2.)

My statements regarding Swartz are not polite by any standard, but I think
they should be allowed in a serious, scientific debate. I would not hesitate
to say this during a formal session of an ICCF conference, for example. I
think it is unreasonable and in a sense disruptive  when people like Swartz
and Newman come flying in here and make these grandiose, unsupported and
unreplicated claims which they refuse to quantify, defend or explain. I cannot
imagine a person at an ICCF giving a lecture in which he claims he has
succeeded in thermoelectric conversion, yet he refuses to describe the power
level or any other salient details. That would be unthinkable! I am not
suggesting we should ban that sort of guff, but I do think that an unkind,
impolite, hard hitting response is appropriate. (His response was a little
emotional I thought, and perhaps unkind, but I have a thick skin and it did
not bother me in the least.)

Real science gets nasty at times. That is my point. You cannot paper over
fundamental disagreements about irresponsible claims based on hot air.

Let us think about this issue carefully before writing a new charter. I think
it would a mistake to try rule out or marginalize conflict. The field of cold
fusion is deep trouble -- it is nearly moribund -- partly because there has
not been enough rigor, challenge, follow up, and demand for proof. People get
away with making unsupported statements. Sensible skeptics see this and
conclude that all claims must be equally vapid.

Jones proposes other rules, which I do not think anyone in the audience will
second:

     (2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
     others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
     serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that
     others muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.

Absolutely not. No coherent debate can evolve when anyone is free to say
anything about any subject! It reminds me of a 1960s "happening" with stoned
audience participation.


     (3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over
     or delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which
     are not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting
     behavior in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out
     of order.

Again, this is what the rest of us and the list owner are voting against. We
have diametrically opposite points of view. Perhaps you should start your own
discussion group based on your standards.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 21:35:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA28685;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:32:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:32:57 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118000807.0068f4f8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:08:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Computer Backups
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JaDLu3.0.407.8mbKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24699
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I have an HP external CD-Writer. It's great! It is slow but the media is
dirt cheap and the backups can be read by any recent computer. The latest
version of Seagate Backup is supposed to work with it. I recommend the
Seagate program.

Backups are crucial, and a never-ending headache.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 21:43:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA31490;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:39:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:39:33 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981118053934.0068b054 atlantic.net>
X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:39:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Kurt Johmann <johmann atlantic.net>
Subject: The Computer Inside You, 4th edition
Resent-Message-ID: <"h8eDb.0.xh7.KsbKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24700
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Just today I finished updating a website that I have, with the new
edition of a book which I've written. If curious, the site is at:


            http://www.webcom.com/johmann/index.html


The brief overview for the book is:
    
    This book proposes in detail an old idea: that the universe is a virtual
    reality generated by an underlying network of computing elements. In
    particular, this book uses this reality model to explain the currently
    unexplained: ESP, afterlife, mind, UFOs and their occupants, organic
    development, and such.


Kurt Johmann
--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 21:51:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA18126;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36525DDE.659A earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:40:46 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact  11.17.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"T-GOz3.0.8R4.H_bKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24701
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: More on the Storms/Shanahan Discourse
  Date:  Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:55 -0400 (EDT)
  From:  Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

[Comment by Rich Murray:  My "Little Lily Hypothesis" of 6.17.98, added
at the end of this post, tries to explain Mizuno's micro-volcano
structures on Au cathodes as caused by melting from chemical heat by
recombination of O2 bubbles attached to H saturated microspots of anode
impurities like Pd, Pt, and Ni.]

(BTW, I saw Ed's response on Escribe, haven't got the mailing yet.)

Dr. Storms,

Having read your last response, I find I need and want to continue the 
discussion a little longer.  I will break the discussion into several
topics at this point.

Re: The root cause of the apparent excess heat signal, i.e. mundane
chemistry vs. CANR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your response you state "you have to assume" several times, and I
began to wonder if you were referring specifically to me, or if you were
using a generic 'you' with the intent of outlining your position. For
this response I will assume you meant me, and respond thus.

My root cause for an observed excess heat signal in a closed-cell
electrolysis cell is actually twofold.  First, I postulate a measurement
error imbedded in the method (which is a combination of the cell design
and the mathematics used to convert the raw data to meaningful
quantities such as power).  I will hold discussion of that for below.

Second, I postulate "special states of matter" (to borrow your phrase)
which are more commonly known as catalytically active surface sites,
that serve as highly active recombination sites.  These sites seem to
develop only on certain Pd samples, and they seem to be difficult to
develop, i.e. it is unlikely to find them on 'untreated' Pd.  Further,
they seem to be unstable in that they can be made to cease functioning
by appropriate treatments.

I believe that this catalytic site postulate can explain all the
observed features of Pd chemistry in electrolysis cells, _without_
invoking any new chemistry or physics.  There are precedents for what I
propose from other systems, so I am not even being that original.

Specifically you state that: "You have to assume that the electrodes
become increasingly catalytic as time goes on. "  

If you imply a specific form to the time evolution of the activity, I
can't agree.  Because the factors controlling the birth, activity, and
death of the sites are unknown, whether they remain constant or change
is unknown, and what controls them is unknown.  Thus, the signal they
produce can do anything it desires, with no regard to anything but those
uncontrolled unknown factors.

Also:  "You have to assume that the effect is somehow related to the
composition of Pd and not to time."

Not at all.  I assume standard chemistry, which means that the Pd will
have some relevance, but the treatment it receives will also play a
role.  Further, what contacts the Pd will also have a potential role. 
Time will provide impact as well through standard chemical kinetics of
competing and complimentary reactions.

I believe my postulate is as generally applicable to understanding the
behavior of these cells as the CANR proposal.  The true fundamental
difference here between my basic position and yours is that you
postulate an over-unity performance, and I do not, which leads us back
to the first part of my proposal.

Re: The measurement accuracy of closed cell calorimeters
--------------------------------------------------------

Above I stated that I postulate a measurement error imbedded in the
method, the 'method' being a combination of the cell design and the
mathematics used to convert the raw data to meaningful quantities such
as power.  My model expresses the excess heat signal in terms of a
postulated difference in heat detection efficiency arising from
inhomogeneous heat source distribution.  You have basically concluded
that this cannot occur because of published and unpublished 
temperature measurements you have conducted.  Unfortunately, I would
need to see the entire protocol used to reach your conclusions, i.e. a
full set of publications, before I could progress past the point I am
now, which is assuming that you simply didn't probe the cell adequately.

I have noted a few inconsistencies in your response which I would like
to address, regarding the issue of temperature homogeneity in the cell. 
First, some thermal conductivities (taken from the CRC Handbook of Chem.
and Phys. and Chilton and Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook):

Pt 716-730, Pd 718, Pyrex  11.7, Water 6.4, Teflon 2.4, D2 1.4, N2 0.3
(all are in the same units, mW/cm*K )

As you can see the least thermally conductive material is the deuterium
gas (the N2 number is for comparing D2 to air for reference).  Thus heat
transport through the gas would be the major bottleneck to heat
transfer.  Yes, the Pyrex is a poorer conductor than Pt or Pd, but not
that bad.  It is about twice that of water.  Teflon's conductivity is
1/3 that of the water, but a little under 2X that of D2.  I contend that
if stirring is needed to avoid thermal gradients in the electrolyte,
then stirring is needed even more so to avoid thermal stratification in
the gas phase.  As I recall such stirring is incidental to the ongoing
process, which has been shown to be an inadequate approach for the 
liquid, a material with better thermal conductivity.

In addition, if you consider the water formed at the recombiner, the way
I look at it, to get it to the liquid phase and thus able to drip into
the electrolyte, you have to remove the heat of vaporization from it. 
That would leave liquid water at close to its boiling point on the
recombiner.  That leaves very little space for heat absorbtion and
subsequent transfer to the electrolyte by that water.  If you observe
significant dripping from the recombiner, I would expect the liquid to
have arisen from splashes onto the recombiner, and that should be the
only significant way to get heat transfer from the recombiner to the
liquid via droplets.

At this point I think I can see the lines being drawn in the sand.  I
need full descriptions of the experiments that Dr. Storms uses to claim
complete mixing in the gas space, and he isn't ready to publish them. 
The net conclusion is that, barring other experimental results, I will
have to wait before I can reject my hypothesis of incomplete thermal
mixing in the cells.

Some specific points:
---------------------

Ed wrote:

> Following this calibration, ...{snip}...  As you
>suggest, this shows that power being produced at the recombiner does not
>affect the behavior of the cell.  

No Ed, I said the Pt sheet didn't affect the recombiner function.  My
whole thesis is that heat produced at the recombiner in one steady-state
moves to the liquid in another.  Or were you restricting your comment to
calibration cells where no excess heat signal is detected?  In that
case, the failure of the electrode to catalyze recombination at the
elevated levels of 'special Pd' is the primary reason there is no
apparent recombiner effect.

Ed mentioned that removing Pd electrodes did not produce rapid heating
from these catalytically active sites, and uses this to discount my
proposal.  Unfortunately, I would expect sites that were so hard to
produce to be easily destroyed when presented with 20% oxygen in N2, as
opposed to whatever the local concentration is in the electrolyte.  In
other words Ed's observations are easily dismissed within the context of
catalytic chemistry behavior as irrelevant to the behavior of the
electrode in the cell. 

Ed wrote that to get significant recombination at the electrode, bubble 
transport must be significant, and it isn't.  However, who's to say that
in ALL operating conditions of the cell, D2 and O2 are NOT presented to
the electrode in sufficient quantities to produce an apparent excess,
ASSUMING the presence of those catalytic sites.  Thus, it would be only
after they grew in that 'excess heat' would be observed, because the D2
and O2 didn't react at the electrode before that point.  I realize the
bubbles have buoyant forces on them forcing them up, but isn't the
stirrer specifically added to overcome this, because otherwise gradients
are produced?  Ed also mentions that convection currents transport most
of the gas to the surface.  Again, doesn't the stirrer overcome 
this?  The upshot is that I am uncertain what the D2 and O2
concentrations at the electrode surface are, and whether they change
during the different current level operations.

Ed wrote:
>2. You have to assume that the temperature difference between the gas
>and the fluid is large, and that a change in this difference will
>produce a change in the calibration constant.  

No, I assume localized hot spots that change, I make no assumptions
about changing calibration constants.  In fact, my thesis is that the
calibration constant determined under one steady-state is really not
applicable to another.

Later in the same paragraph Ed writes:
>If required, I can pull out some examples from my experience.  I have not taken
the trouble to publish these >studies because the possible error appears
to be 
so unimportant.  

This is what I would love to see in full detail.  The snippets you have
noted so far have just stimulated my appetite for a 'full meal'.

And:
>I have since gone to a flow calorimeter which side-steps all of these issues.

Why would this side step the issue?  If the calorimeter has differing
heat capture efficiencies that can be 'exploited' by shifting heat
production patterns, my proposal should hold.  In fact, I can't envision
a calorimeter that might not suffer from this problem to some degree or
another, depending entirely on the design of the heat capture surfaces. 
I note that later you extend this conclusion to other types of
calorimeters, specifically flow, Seebeck, and double-wall isoperibolic. 
Please would you clarify this conclusion of yours? 

Further down:
>Yes, important heat is lost through the top.  You are taking about a
>second order effect produced by small changes in the gas temperature.
>This effect is small compared to the original, steady heat loss which is
>corrected for by the calibration.

What I am _really_ trying to talk about is an effect that could appear
to be tens of watts.  If I diverged to lesser issues, I apologize for
distracting attention.  Recall that I 'claim':
   excess heat = "transferred heat" * kc * (k2-k1)
kc is the reciprocal of the overall calorimeter collection efficiency. 
In the horrible case of 10%, kc=10. With that much inefficiency, could
k2-k1 reach .5 perhaps?  Then if X is 10 W, the excess heat signal would
be 50W!  I don't call that second order.  This is a _primary_
explanation for the apparent excess heat, and needs to be directly
addressed by experiments designed to exclude or assess the possibility,
in my opinion.  Thus we end up back at the lines in the sand...

Later, in reference to my table of average excess power and current:
>Therefore, the averages mean nothing.

Ummm...taking an average is a simple mathematical action.  Plotting the
average against a proposed relevant experimental parameter and showing a
monotonic dependence is a mathematical fact.  The relationship exists,
and explaining it should be of interest.  The plot may not show direct
cause-and-effect, but it probably contains some of that if the relevant
variables are expressed correctly.  Please note a second plot of
interest showing a similar curvature would be "Standard Deviation at a
Power" vs. "Current".

Further:
>No, the opposite effect is actually seen. Lower currents cause an
>increased fraction of the gas to be recombined on the electrode
>surfaces.  Such currents are well below those required to produce excess
>power.

Note we are talking apples and oranges.  Which relates to your other
comment:
>Now I'm confused.  Do you mean this?

I certainly do.  As the current increases, the available recombination
heat increases.  However, whether the apparent excess heat signal
changes is dependent strictly on how much is transferred.  In principle,
I would guess that changing current would change the amount transferred,
but for a fixed transfer heat (say 1W), as the current goes up, the
percent the 1W represents goes down, but the excess heat signal remains
at 1W.  

Now what you are talking about is that as current goes down the fraction
of gas recombined goes up.  This is reasonably due to more direct
transport of the gases to the surface with higher gas production rates
at higher current.  But, if I pass .1A, I get .15W, and it may appear
100% in the liquid.  If I pass 2.8A and get 4.3W, and only get 20% of
that recombination in the liquid, that means I see .86W, which is close
to a 4X "larger" excess heat signal. (And again, doesn't effective
stirring negate this argument about more recombination at lower
current?)

--------------------------
At this point I have reached my limit of available time.  There may be
more specific points I need or could address, but I will stop here and
summarize where I see our discussion arriving at this point.

I have presented a postulate that with appropriate numerics can explain
excess heat signals in calorimeters.  (I note that this is not the only
effect that can be active in a given calorimeter.)  I contend this is
primarily a function of design and could impact any calorimeter.  The
postulate requires a localized heat source in the cell be redistributed
to an area of differing heat capture efficiency by an unspecified
method.  

Ed suggests that my proposal requires a temperature difference between
gas and liquid (or more correctly between the two regions of the cell
with different efficiencies), and states he has designed away and looked
for and found no such discrepancies.  Thus my proposal is moot because
the physical conditions it requires are not found.

I have then pointed out that the D2 gas in the cell represents the least 
thermally conductive medium of the major cell constituents usually
cited.  The implication being that the gas region of the cells may be
susceptible to stratification.  This requires temperature measurements
be done carefully, but the lack of gradients would be strong evidence
against my proposal if true.  I therefore respectfully request such
evidence, which should include the complete experimental descriptions,
i.e. papers.  I know Ed doesn't have this all readily available.

Further and separately, I have presented a mundane chemical explanation
for how the generic cold fusion cell heat observations may be explained,
within the context of the model I mention above.  Unfortunately, this
proposal is as hard to prove as CANR.  

The heat transfer proposition however is easily checked with a
calibration heater in the gas phase.  Until I see high quality
experimentation aimed at checking this postulate in a form that can be
studied at my leisure, I retain my right to be a skeptic on the CANR
issue.  

I would also like to make it clear once again that while I have defended
my proposals vigorously, in the face of good, solid technical
explanations of the things I am trying to explain, I will quietly fold
my tents and go away.  I try not to get 'pathologically' attached to my
own ideas, but I do admit I surely like them, and I can certainly be
stubborn!

And so I wait...

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

June 17, 1998

Hello all,  The report in May, 1998 Fusion Technology by Ohmori, Mizuno,
and Enyo describes 7 to 30 day runs at 1 to 3 A on 2.5 to 5 cm2 Au
electrodes in 0.5 M Na2CO3 and Na2SO4 H2O electrolyte, from a Pt anode.
producing after a few days up to ~1 mg mostly Au precipitates, and
leaving myriad little lily volcano-like or ear-like foam structures on
scraped (rough) sites on the Au, as large as 20 microns wide and 30
deep, with detected Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti, and other elements, with
claimed isotopic ratio anomalies.

I am disputing their claim that the precipitates and spots are evidence
of low energy nuclear transmutations, and suggesting a chemical reaction
theory, namely that the most abundant and obvious and reactive chemicals
present, naturally enough, H2 and O2, are recombined at the cathode.
I don't know how much the Au will load with H2.  However, Pt, Pd, Ni,
Os, and Ti will naturally be electrodeposited as concentrations at any
tiny rough spots, and then will both load with H and catalyze the swift
reaction of that H with any tiny O2 bubbles that are also attracted from
the anode to attach to the rough spot.  The bubble and the spot will
heat up quickly, so quickly that there is little time for heat loss by
radiation , conduction, or convection at the Au-H2O interface.  As the
Au heats and softens, the contained H will build up pressure and to
expand it like popcorn, creating a popped blister of frozen foam,
expelling some of the metal, and leaving the impressively ugly little
lily vocanos.  The process would tend to reoccur at the thus even
rougher spot, building up a cluster of lilies of various sizes, as is
shown in Ohmori's dramatic images.

I will calculate the details for a 0.1 cm3 amount of O2.

Au melts at 1063 degrees C, 1336 degrees K. 
The molar specific heat Cm = 26.9 J/mol degC.

For Au, 197 g/mol   5.08X10E-3 mol/g   19.32 g/cm3   9.81X10E-2 mol/cm3

10.2 cm3/mol      To heat from 27 to 1063 deg C, a delta of 1036 deg C,

takes heat (1036 deg C)(26.9 J/mol) = 2.79X10E4 J/mol, and to melt takes

1.27X10E4 J/mol, known as the molar heat of fusion.  These conveniently 

add up to 4.06X10E4 J/mol, or 40.6 KJ/mol to heat and melt the Au.  That 

certainly sounds like a lot!

Now, we get the moles of O2 in the 0.1 cm3 O2:

n = PV/RT = (1 atm X 10-4 L)/(8.2X10E-2 atm L/degK mol)X(300 deg K) =

4.065X10E-6  mol O2.  That's not very much.

We know that one mole O2 reacts with 2 moles H2, and may as well assume
with 50% loading that the H2 is held within 4 moles of Au.

The reaction is 2 H2 (g) + O2 (g) ->  2H2O (g), and the enthalpy is

2 X 241.8 KJ/mol = 483.6 KJ/mol.

So the enthalpy released is

Ec = (4.065X10E-6 mol)X(483.6 KJ/mol) = 1.97X10E-3 KJ = 1.97 J.

Now, 2 J is the energy from 1 A at 1 V for 2 sec.  Note: this is the 

range that heats W to incandescence in a flashlight.

The moles of Au heated and melted by this heat are

Nm = (1.97X10E-3 KJ)/(40.6 KJ/mol) = 4.85X10E-5 mol

and the volume of Au melted is

Vm = (4.85X10E-5 mol)X(10.2 cm3/mol) = 4.95X10E-4 cm3, which, assuming
 
for convenience a cube, has a width .791 mm, and 

mass Mm = (4.85X10E-5 mol)X(197 g/mol) = 9.56 mg, or ten times the

maximum precipitates found by Ohmori after 30 days of electrolysis at up

to 3 A and a few volts, an input energy for 2.592X10E6 sec, if at 5 V

and 3 A, of 38,880,000 J.  So the 2 J to create 10 mg of melted Au is a

most minute fraction of the available input energy.

Now, the results are the same if we have one 0.1 cm3 O2 bubble, or a 
million bubbles of size 10E-7 cm3, spread out randomly over the 30 day 
run, about 2-3 event/sec,  creating the same total of 10 mg melted Au.  
These million bubbles would as little cubes have widths .004641 cm = 
46.4 micron, about the right size for our little lilies.  Each of these 
events would have an average energy of 2X10E-6 J.  It should be possible 
to detect IR, visible, and UV radiation, and acoustic signals, about 2-3 
event/sec.  Another test would be to use an anode which does not 
contribute Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti, and in contrast, to use an anode 
enriched in these metals.  Also, a barrier could be used to prevent O2 
bubbles from reaching the cathode from the anode, and in contrast,
positioning the anode to maximize O2 bubble transfer.

Rich Murray
Room For All
1943 Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 22:09:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA19826;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36526337.26A earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:03:35 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory 11.17.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JNQi-2.0.fr4.TGcKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24702
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Storms: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory 11.16.98
      Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:47:14 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

[Comment by Rich Murray: I'm surprised Ed maintains the Miley claims for
massive nuclear transmutation in the CETI cell are valid.  I will repost
my Eighth Miley Critique, which uses Miley's own data to undermine these
conclusions.]

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Subject:  Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 11.15.98
>   Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:54:43 -0500 (EST)
>   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:    rmforall earthlink.net
> 
Reply to Blue by Storms

> Certainly we can agree on much of this.  You, at least, are now
> acknowledging the merits of at least some of what the skeptics have been
> saying for nine long years.  Taking this point by point:

The argument made by skeptics which I object to, as has everyone else
who has seen the effect, is that the observed anomalous results are not
real, being caused solely by various errors. This is what the skeptics
have been saying in various ways, Dick included. I do not object to
discussing how the real effect might be explained and will readily
acknowledge good arguments or bad data in this context.

> 1) I agree that too few neutrons (by something like a factor of 10^13)
> are emitted to tell us anything about the presumed process other than
> the clear fact that there can be no intermediate state for the system
> with nuclear excitation energies above the neutron binding energy, i.e.
> everything in the system stays at or near its nuclear ground state.  Now
> what you may find distressing is just how much can be ruled out by this
> one simple observation, to which you have now agreed.

What do you have in mind?

> 2) Takahashi's idea has no merit and is contrary to the known patterns
> of behavior for virtually every similar physical system ever
> investigated. One of the pillars of quantum reaction theory is "Fermi's
> Golden Rule", which carries right up front a phase-space factor.  To get
> two nuclei to interact via the strong interaction requires that their
> separations be comparable to the range of said interaction.  That is to
> say they have to get together.  While I will leave you some wiggle room
> for setting just how close is close enough, I don't think I can go along
> with the notion that the interaction probability goes up rather than
> down as more bodies get involved.

I did not suggest that three bodies aid in overcoming the coulomb
barrier.  Obviously, a novel process must be operating to do this job. 
However, once the barrier is overcome, the energy dissipation problem is
easier to explain and a higher interaction probably is allowed.  I
imagine the process as follows:  Two deuterons occasionally form a
virtual helium.  How this happens is not known at the present time.
Nevertheless, in order for this virtual state to decay to the stable
ground state, energy and momentum must be dissipated.  Unless the entire
lattice can share in the process, no mechanism is available. Gamma
emission is a rare event even in the hot fusion environment and
certainly is less probable here. If we assume for the moment that
lattice coupling is not possible, then the virtual helium will return to
the initial condition and no nuclear reaction would result.  On the
other hand, if a third deuteron happens to be located in the same
nuclear wave function environment, the energy and momentum could be
transferred to it, and a nuclear reaction could occur. Thus, the
presence of a third particle increases the reaction probability,
provided the initial fusion is already in progress. 

Some new mechanism to overcome any coulomb barrier must be available,
otherwise none of the claims could be possible. Since I believe many of
the claims, I am forced to believe in such a process.  Because Dick does
not believe such a process is possible, he does not believe the claims. 
This is the basic difference between our two approaches and why we will
never reach agreement.

> 3) I agree entirely!

My approach to the d+d fusion problem is as follows:
For a simple two body fusion reaction to take place, three questions
must be answered.
1. How do they get together (i.e. the barrier problem)?
2. Why are the expected reaction paths not followed?
3. How is the energy dissipated?
In short, the three miracles.

On the other hand, alpha emission requires only one miracle, although a
larger one, i.e. how is the larger coulomb barrier overcome?  Energy
dissipation is not an issue. The alpha goes off in a normal way and is
seen much later as helium.  An interesting experiment would be to
dissolve in the lattice an element which could produce an (alpha,n)
reaction and look for the neutrons.

It seems to me an assumption of alpha emission is an easier path to
explore, at least until better proof for a fusion reaction is obtained.
 
> 4) I would say that the nuclear process must be sensitive to the
> chemical environment to a remarkable degree  -- nothing like what has
> ever been observed.

True, that is why this is such a controversial and important subject.

> 5)Certainly nuclear observations are important.  That has been my main
> message.

Yes, but the nuclear studies have not been coupled to heat emission. 
Therefore, we still do not have a good understanding of what is
happening during heat production. 

> 6)So now we come to what, for you, is the key question.  Do I agree that
> results in hand for CANR investigations justify the expenditure of
> further money and resources?  If by that you mean an endless repetition
> of calorimetric studies which appear to have no goal but to pick through
> an assortment of palladium cathodes in hopes of finding one that works,
> I don't see that as having any value.  I wouldn't willingly pay for such
> research.  As I have been noting, far too many of these investigations
> have yielded only marginal results.  I have not heard from you, or
> anyone, a clearly stated plan for future investigations that has promise
> for improving on the past efforts.  My sense is that unless someone has
> a better approach in mind the funds would be better spent elsewhere.

Maybe Dick has not seen such a plan but it exists.  I have been
attempting to determine those characteristics of palladium which
influence heat production.  I can now identify material that works in a
Pons-Fleischmann cell with a high probability of success. Anyone who
reads my publications and has a background in material science, sees the
importance of this effort. The trouble with people with a physics
background, especially when they are handicapped by believing the effect
can not exist in the first place, this work is rejected because time is
not taken to understood it. As a result, the best approach to producing
a reproducible experiment is rejected before it can even get started,
thus justifying the initial skepticism.

These comments apply only to the Pons-Fleischmann method.  Other methods
have now been discovered which are not as sensitive to the nature of the
material. These are being investigated and will eventually lead to an
easily reproducible demonstration.
 
> It is important to note that the Reifenschweiler experiment was actually
> conducted many years (like 30) before it was reported.  I was always
> a careful experimenter and I sometimes had leaks in my thin foils.
> Whether I stopped to fix said leak depended on whether I considered it
> significant to the operation of the experiment.  What Reifenschweiler
> thought about his experiment must have changed after the fact, else why
> the long delay in publication?  

At the time, the observation was an anomaly which was not related to the
reason for the experiment. In addition, the result could not be
explained to the satisfaction of a publication.  Only after cold fusion
can along was an explanation suggested and a publication route became
available. 

>Unless this result is replicated I don't
> see that there is much to be gained by debating the experimental
> details.  My understanding is that attempts at replication were being
> considered some years back, but I have not heard anything further.  Does
> that tell us that the replication attempt has failed?

I do not know if the replication was actually undertaken.
 
> I see no problem with having helium leak through bubbling oil to travel
> "upstream" in a low-velocity gas stream.  So then we come to the
> questions relating to adequate controls and supposed correlations to
> excess heat. This is one of those experiments that may well have
> benefited from the use of a double-blind protocol -- something not done
> as I understand it. As for the controls, certainly in the initial series
> of measurements they were inadequate.  In one of your reviews, I
> believe, the supposed correlation between excess heat and helium is
> plotted.  At first glance, I was not impressed.  I'll have to look at
> that more carefully and get back to you on that point.

There is no way a double blind experiment can be done.  How many physics
experiments do you know having been done this way? The initial series of
experiments were repeated because they were not adequate. No point is
served in bringing up this issue while at the same time insisting I take
better work off the table.  The second series showed good correlation
although the error bars are large.  In addition, no-heat production
correlates with no-helium production very well.  Of course the results
are not perfect, but are you willing to reject them just because you can
imagine helium passing up-stream through a bubbler to give replicated
results which agree well within random error?

> > > There are two potential sins to be considered here.  I agree that it is
> > > a mistake to be to quick to reject claims relating to newly observed
> > > phenomena.  It is, however, also a mistake to expend great amounts of
> > > time and resources chasing after something imaginary.  What is required
> > > of us, I should think, is to exercise sound, proper, rational,
> > > scientific judgement for the evaluation of all results in order to best
> > > direct our future investigations toward realistic goals.  I have not
> > > been saying that CANR investigations should not be undertaken.  I have
> > > just been saying that calorimetry alone is not getting us anywhere.
> >
> > Yes, I agree.  However, one needs to believe the heat claims are real to
> > justify setting up the expensive experiments to detect the proposed
> > nuclear products. In addition, we need to understand how to produce the
> > excess energy so that time is not wasted, as has been done in the past,
> > looking at cells which are not active.
> >
> > The idea of what is imaginary after applying sound judgement is the
> > issue. We all think we apply sound judgement.  Some people's judgement
> > is so sound that good ideas are rejected, only later to be taken up and
> > proven by people with less sound judgement. I would rather accept an
> > idea that later is shown to be false than reject an idea that later
> > turns out to be true. Dick seems to take the opposite approach.
> 
> I would not say that I am taking the opposite approach. You and I both
> agree that an idea that is shown to be false should be rejected.  What
> I have been pointing out is that several CANR claims have, in fact,
> been shown to be false, but the advocates typically will not reject
> these data.

Some results are false.  I could care less if an advocate (usually the
experimenter) insists on maintaining them to be true.  On the other
hand, Dick and I clearly do not agree on what is false and what may be
true.  If I read Dick correctly, he would reject any experiment which
supports the claims for CANR. Or more exactly, I have yet to find an
experimental result in this field he believes is correct or important.

>I now see that you reject the hypothesis that the excess
> heat is produced by cold fusion.  That certainly is a step forward.
> I would further suggest that the Miley claims for massive nuclear
> transmutations should be rejected.  Will you join me on that point?

No, the Miley work is good and it is supported by several other studies.
 
> I suggest that the Mills notion of shrinking atoms should be rejected.

Maybe, but Dufour is seeing results which are consistent with this idea.

> I suggest that the Yamaguchi claims for helium production should be
> rejected.

I agree, some problems exist in this work.  I would not base any
important conclusions on the claims.

> Still it is not entirely a matter of thumbs up or down on each
> experiment. One problem we must note is this ongoing failure to
> replicate in detail any result.  That, in part, may explain the failure
> for these investigations to progress in an orderly way.  So when I note
> significant differences, perhaps indicative of systematic error, you can
> ascribe the differences to something in the chemical environment.
> Unless we can define that environment sufficiently well to reduce the
> variability of outcome, it remains difficult or impossible to establish
> any facts regarding either the required environment or the supposed
> nuclear process.

Yes, that is also my point.  Yet, as Dick stated at the start of this
dialogue, he would not invest any effort in solving this problem. For
people who understand material science, understanding of the environment
has come a long way.  If attention were paid to this problem, rather
than having to fight arguments that have no bearing on the problem, we
could have the required answers sooner.
 
> > I take measurements of current and voltage which are averaged over many
> > points. The current reading is taken immediately after the voltage
> > reading.  The average is multiplied to obtain the power.  If the signals
> > were very noisy, the point Dick raises would have an effect.  However,
> > the amount of noise is not large compared to the signal, as I have
> > indicated.  In addition, the same data acquisition is used during
> > calibration as during the study.  For an effect to occur, the amount of
> > noise would have to increase substantially during the run.  This does
> > not happen.
> 
> Here is a concrete criticism of your chosen experimental protocol.  I am
> suggesting that the time variation in the signals for your measurements
> should be of some concern to you because they are "noisy".  Now
> averaging noisy signals may make them look nicer without actually doing
> anything to reduce the effects of that noise.  As I noted the power
> input is the product of the instantaneous voltage and the instantaneous
> current.  It is NOT the product of the averages as you indicate.  For
> electrolysis, the power input is noisy because the effective resistance
> of the cell fluctuates.  The calorimeter cannot, in fact, track the
> power input, so there is a potential source of error hiding in the time
> dependence of the power input.  You, however, note that the calorimeter
> is calibrated repeatedly using a resistive load in order to insure that
> no systematic error is made.  Now what is the time dependence of the
> power input for a resistive load?  Does it in any way mimic the behavior
> of an electrochemical cell?  Let me suggest that your protocol does
> not rule out errors deriving from the noisy character of the power
> input.

I repeat again, the noise is small relative to the basic value.
Measurements made using the data acquisition system give the same value
as a 4 place rms meter; the resistive load is not noisy yet gives the
same calibration; and the excess power only is seen when the palladium
has achieved certain conditions which have no effect on the noise. What
more does Dick want before he will go on to something having relevance?

> > > > This is the conventional model which does not work. I agree, the process
> > > > can not involve d+d=4He as an isolated reaction.
> > > >
> > > > I think we are limited to four possibilities at the present time:
> > > > 1. The process occurs between waves as the Chubbs propose,
> > > > 2. The process occurs between 3 or 4 deuterons as Takahashi proposes,
> > > > 3. The process is alpha emission after a metal-deuteron reaction, or
> > > > 4. The process involves a hydrogen or deuterium nuclei which has been
> > > > partially neutralized by its electron, as proposed in several
> > > > variations by Dufour, Mills and Kozima.
> > >
> > > Let me address these from the bottom up.  With regard to (4) all that
> > > does, it seems to me, is to alter the overall reaction rate, but it will
> > > not dramatically change the reaction process that is initiated.  Thus
> > > the fusion which results will look very much like muon-catalyzed
> > > fusion.
> >
> > No, it is proposed that reaction would lead to neutron activation of
> > some metal impurity following by alpha emission.
> 
> At last a specific nuclear reaction hypothesis to be addressed!  By
> neutron activation I presume you mean the transfer of a neutron from a
> donor nucleus (to be specified) to a receptor with resulting excitation
> of that nucleus sufficient to allow the emission of an alpha particle.
> If this is what you mean, we can proceed to decide whether experimental
> evidence supports this picture.

Yes

> > The reactions seem to look like normal alpha emission.  The problem is
> > how the alpha emitter was made in the first place
> 
> Oh there are more problems than just figuring out how the alpha emitter
> is made.  We have to address such things as energetic alphas thus
> produced and what they do to the chemical environment in which this
> reaction occurs. We have to deal with multiple isotopes leading to
> variations on this theme.  We have to consider competing decay
> processes.  I suspect you are still going to be appealing to the concept
> of multiple miracles on demand.

Of course miracles are required.  Otherwise, we would not have to deal
with skeptics. The question is, what process requires the fewest number?

> > Yes, and this drop off is consistent with the need for a very high
> > deuterium concentration.
> 
> It isn't just the highly improbably nature of 3 and 4 body processes
> that must be considered.  We need to know what keeps the 2 body process
> out of the picture.

See my comments as noted above. 

> > Without getting into details, Scott is suggesting that deuterons can act
> > like waves in a lattice.  They can act like waves when passed through a
> > diffraction grating as single particles.  If the lattice looks like a
> > diffraction grating because of the periodicity, why would this effect
> > not be seen there?
> 
> I fear you have failed to grasp the significance of what Scott is
> proposing within the context of a real physical system, something which
> I assert does not and cannot exist as proposed.  The diffraction grating
> is an appropriate analogy only if the periodicity actually exists.The
> Chubb theory starts with an appeal to the analogy of conduction
> electrons in a periodic lattice.  In the case of those electrons the
> theory does describe real phenomena because certain conditions in that
> lattice are well approximated by the Chubb picture, namely the electrons
> move essentially as free particles and can interact only in a limited
> way with other electrons that remain bound to the atoms of the lattice.
> The model may even have limited applicability for some deuterons in a
> fully loaded lattice -- the so called ion band state.
> 
> However Scott Chubb overextended the conduction-electron model to
> involve some other degrees of freedom, namely the internal motions of
> the deuterons. In this regard there are two false notions that come into
> play.  First is the notion that the temperature T=0 condition applies,
> in any sense. It must be noted that each degree of freedom has a
> temperature to be considered.  There is not an overall temperature
> unless all degrees of freedom are coupled.  What Scott Chubb is
> attempting to hide behind a seemingly harmless assumption of T=0 is the
> notion that all the deuterons are in a perfectly ordered state.  In
> practical terms that means that all deuterons have their spins aligned.
> However, in the real world we don't have a lattice at T=0.  The lattice
> temperature is actually 300 K, more than enough to totally disorder the
> deuteron spins.  Even if the lattice were cooled to shall we say 4 K the
> deuterons would remain totally disordered because the energy spectrum
> for the various spin alignments is very, very low.
> 
> The problem with the Chubb picture does not end there, however.  Having
> finessed the question of nuclear ordering, we move on to the assumed
> model for the strong interaction potential that is provided by the
> periodic lattice.  Because of the chosen formalism it gets difficult to
> see what Chubb is proposing, but he essentially is saying that the
> deuteron can come apart leaving two bits to experience a periodic
> lattice separately. One of those bits is a virtual neutron.  It can't be
> a real, free neutron, because the deuteron is bound by 2.225 MeV -- not
> something that gives a hoot about the chemical environment, no matter
> what Ed Storms wishes. So the real clincher is just what Scott Chubb
> assumes that this virtual neutron encounters at distances a kazillion
> times its normal range of travel.  He assumes that it encounters NOTHING
> but still sees a periodic potential.  By the way Scott Chubb is still
> attempting to explain cold fusion, which Ed Storms and I have now agreed
> does not occur.

My understanding of the Chubb theory after talking to Talbot is
different from Dick�s understanding after debating Scott.  I do not get
the impression that the conduction electrons are the main reason for a
wave-particle transformation. A lattice is periodic by definition and
observation. Deuterons moving through this periodic array of Pd atoms
can do so as particles, as is normally visualized when diffusion is
described, or they are proposed to move through the lattice as waves. 
Granted, not all of the lattice is sufficiently perfect to initiate this
wave-particle transformation. However, in rare regions, the structure is
sufficiently perfect so that a few waves are formed and interact. During
this interaction, energy is gradually lost from the wave system until
the the energy level of a helium wave has been achieved.  At this point
the wave can become a helium particle and the energy has been dissipated
throughout the lattice as many low-energy phonons.  Talbot states this
better, but I think I have described the essence of the model. The model
eliminates all three miracles needed for simple d+d fusion while
requiring a new one, i.e. wave-particle transformation.  

While I agree that d+d particle interaction is unlikely, I would still
explore the Chubb variation to this problem.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 22:29:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA21981;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <365266EF.1AAA earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:19:27 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Eighth Miley Critique  7.21.97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dvZDy2.0.NN5.eZcKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24703
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 21, 1997

B.S. in history and physics, M.I.T., 1964, M.A. in psychology, Boston U.
Graduate School, 1967.  My life has been devoted to a private
exploration of expanded states of consciousness.  For the past eight
years, I have supported myself as a home hospice worker.  Maintaining a
keen interest in science, I have perused every issue of Scientific
American, Science, Physics Today, and Speptical Inquirer.  I've followed
the cold fusion field closely for eight years, subscribed to Vortex-L
discussion group since January, 1996, and attended the September Low
Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference.  Some critical posts on Vortex-L
led me to examine Miley's first two Preprints carefully.  I found plenty
of nits to pick, got on my high horse, and sent a long, detailed, rude
post to Vortex-L early in December.  Being a little tenacious at times,
I've written a total of seven Miley Critiques.  This one I will call for
convenience, the Eighth Critique.  Responding to Miley's post of July
20, I have given up some skeptical claims, and added more analysis of
the data.

I will take the space here to reiterate my after/before ratios
in my First Miley Critique,  [posted Dec 7, 1996, on George H. Miley,
"Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing
Electrolysis," "Infinite Energy" magazine, # 9, July-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.

Table 4a in First Preprint shows that the cells contain l91 micrograms V
in the two Ti electrodes: if 1 % somehow dissolved out, then that would
roughly equal the 1.52 micrograms of V that Miley measured as added to
the beads.  At any rate, there seems to be no evidence of isotope shift
for V.  

If we had the specific before and after data for the other five runs,
then more of this simple analysis could be done.

Zn-68, with an estimated SIMS count of ~11,  was listed as enhanced
15.84 % in First Preprint.  

Here is Miley's data from Table 3 for three isotopes of Si, a non-NAA
element, so the data is from SIMS only:

        Atoms per microsphere
                                     
Mass No. Fresh     Reacted   After/Before   SIMS counts, from Fig. 3b

28       8.14E+16  3.02E+17  3.7                ~300
29       0         2.04E+16  ?                  ~ 30
30       0         1.02E+16  ?                  ~ 10

Again, the poverty of raw data precludes any claims about
isotopic shifts, especially to four-digit accuracy!  Miley's Table 3
claims Si 30 has a +14.66 % shift, based on a raw data SIMS count of
about 10.  Presumably, Fig. 3b presents Miley's best raw data-- why else
would he publish it?  By the way, why is the after data for Si 29 twice
that for Si 30 ?
                     
My first five Miley Critiques present plenty of data from
Miley's first two Preprints that show massive transfer of Ni from some
beads to other beads within the thousand beads in a cell.  So, since
much of the Ni is dissolved from some beads and redeposited on other
beads, any trace elements will be liberated and redeposited, perhaps as
concentrated spots, which would then be likely to be noticed and
measured by the micron-scale SIMS scans on the few spots on the about 10
or so beads selected for study out of the thousand in a cell.  Only a
thorough, detailed, exact, expensive inventory of cell contents and
products, including gunk, gases, and grit, could determine if
transmutation or transfer is the model to be applied to the data.

Since SIMS on before beads would be on smooth, unremarkable locations of
pure metal, while SIMS on after beads would presumably be on
interesting, noticable specific reaction sites, like the pits, bubbles,
and volcanos imaged by Mizuno, Ohmori, and Dash, then it is conceivable
that 18-Kev oxygen ion bombardment on such concentrations of impurities
or products, vaporizing them, could produce even more nuclear
transmutations, if they are already possible under the very mild
conditions of electrolysis.
        
I will provide by email or mail copies of my Critiques.

Rich Murray
Room For All
1943 Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
rmforall earthlink.net
505-986-9103

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 22:33:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA16617;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:31:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:31:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118013403.00ac2350 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 01:34:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118000400.00690f1c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"D5XyB2.0.V34.PdcKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24704
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 12:04 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitchell Jones suggests this rule:
>
>     (1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided
>     that topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.
>
>I believe the majority and the list owner disagree with the "anything goes"
>philosophy. That is what precipitated this mini-crisis. Actually, you have
>done us a favor, Mitch, by bringing this crisis to a head. You force reforms
>upon us which are long overdue.


  First, Jed Rothwell has given more (far) off-topic posts
 than Mitchell Jones. This pseudo-"crisis" continues to be created
 and fanned by Mr. Rothwell.  

  We should consider Washington's comment: 

  "In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice
  of the multitude.  Every man will speak as he thinks"
        [George Washington to Lafayette, 9/1/1778]

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


>I personally disagree with the "polite" idea. I have been to many physics
>conferences, and the best  discussions have not always been polite.
>Professional, yes, but often hard hitting. 


   Second, Jed Rothwell has lately increasingly been feeling
quite free to throw inaccurate and unsubstantiated ad hominems.

This is not ONLY improper but demeans Jed Rothwell's
potential for what might be otherwise good prose and
history.  By his own suggested rules, Jed should be removed.


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



>Here is something for the readers
>of this forum to think about here and now, before we make any changes or
>establish any new rules. The other day I posted a message with paragraphs
>including:
>
>     The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
>     driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and
>     not Joule heating from electrolysis. It may even mean the reactions were
>     self-sustaining (either heat after death or regenerative). After all,
>     what would be the point of describing a cell in which ten watts of Joule
>     heating plus a half watt of cold fusion heat together drive a
>     thermoelectric device? That would be a trivial accomplishment. . . .
>
>     Unless this claim is clarified, quantified, and specific details are
>     provided, I am afraid it does not mean much. Unfortunately, in the past
>     when Scott Little and others have asked Swartz to clarify, he has always
>     refused. He will not even tell us how many watts his devices produce,
>     which is the bare minium information anyone needs to sort out a claim.


    Third, just this afternoon, Scott Little sent me email confirming that
Jed 
is wrong, and that Scott knew EXACTLY "how many watts" the reported device
 did produce. 

    Jed Rothwell is not truthful.   Why?  And why does he repeat it
OVER and OVER even AFTER he is informed he is wrong?


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



>Low power claims (below a half-watt) are dubious except when reported by
>experts like Miles, and a low power claim from an unconventional, unique
>calorimeter like Swartz's should be automatically rejected out of hand,
>by my stick-in-the-mud conventionalist standards. . . .


    Fourth, an integrating multiring calormeter with both in situ
joule and chemical controls is now longer unconventional -- except
to Jed-"I dont need no calibration"-Rothwell.  
  
   Having in situ calibration of any type, and measure the
impulse response of his calorimeter, apparently does not
occur to Jed, but rather threatens his 'stick in the mud' 
calorimeter (without controls).   That is unfortunate.
    

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


>My statements regarding Swartz are not polite by any standard, but I think
>they should be allowed in a serious, scientific debate. 


   The politeness is nowhere as important as the blatant 
fact that Rothwells statements are knowingly not true.    

  Jed's inaccuracy here is consistent with what Jed did to Mr. Allen,
and to the late Stanley Meyers.  In fact, reviewing the
hard drive Jed is reported to have been far from accurate in 
other of his comments about other vorts, so this is sad.
Given the above, his comments should have been in vorex-b, 
or elsewhere.


 Now why don't all the vorts add up the off-topics by Jed
and compare them quantitatively to this temporary off topic
thread of Mitchell Jones, and consider that ALL of
these recent conversations are FAR from the important goal of
seeking o/u/cf/zpe/vortex devices.  

      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 22:52:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA21612;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:50:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:50:49 -0800
Message-ID: <024001be12bf$70963be0$ba98a8cf hh2152186.www.surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 01:48:19 -0500
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: <"Lf7G1.0.cH5.9vcKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24705
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Isn't north Ga near one of the tritium plants in the world?  What happens if
tritium gets into the water?


>>Nor have I noticed a response about the idea of the
>>hydrogen dissociation - recombination cycle as a excess energy source.
>
>Try the archives.  Lots has been said on this.  Here's an example, an
>amateurish prior vortex post of mine faniced up with a title:
>
>                     THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS
>
>                       Horace Heffner  12/30/1996
>
>STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS
>
>The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion
>(AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+,
>which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the
>surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be
>greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a
>sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs.  This is an idea
>that leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a
>basis for the design of over unity devices.  If correct, the AEH also
>explains various previously observed results.
>
>This hypothesis is another expression among many of the idea that the
>excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or
>transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy
>(ZPE) sea.  This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion
>does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing
>source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE.  It is an assumption
>of this hypothesis that ZP energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and
>is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. There have
>been various publications referencing ZPE, especially by Dr. H. E. Puthoff
>[1 - 6]
>
>Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be
>deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution.  These
>deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due
>to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields.  The
>deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into
>potential energy, and back.  With the exception of the occasional resulting
>photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the
>gas laws and thermodynamics work so well.  It is true that collision and
>pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but
>differ from purly field generated deformations in that the
>collision/deformation caused fields (or field distortions) are highly
>localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field
>distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy
>density.
>
>HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE?
>
>John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of
>vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a
>light bulb to boil all the seas.  The problem is designing a mechanism to
>effectively extract this energy.  The energy available is dependent upon
>the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the
>Casimir Effect, etc.  The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount
>of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction
>repeat rate per volume achievable.  It does appear the two goals, high
>repeat rate, and high confinement, typically oppose each other.
>
>The ZP energy fills every vacuum.  If there is not a cutoff frequency, that
>energy is infinite.  Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank
>frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the
>order of 10^94 g/cm^3.  Multiply by c^2 and you have an enormous energy
>density - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself
>from the ZPE sea if tapped.
>
>The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by:
>
>rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw
>          = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3
>
>Rearranging we have:
>
>rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3
>
>rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3
>
>
>Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff
>frequency B:
>
>f(B) = K/4 B^4
>
>This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not
>constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff
>frequency being tapped.  The big problem is figuring out how to tap this
>energy.  If a method of tapping ZPE energy is found, conservation of energy
>is not violated, the second law of thermodynnamics is violated, as the
>replacement energy ultimately flows from elsewhere in the universe.
>
>Of interest is that most of the ZP energy is in the top frequencies of the
>ZP spectrum tapped.  The bottom 98 percent of the frequency distribution
>tapped contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy.  The top two percent
>contains about 8 percent of the energy.  This implies it is best to utilize
>the smallest possible wavelengths in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and
>therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures.  This leaves
>atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results.
>
>Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get:
>
>f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4
>
>Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1
>angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so:
>
>f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4
>
>f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3
>
>f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3
>
>If only the top 2 percent of the accessible ZPE frequency band is utilized,
>we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3.
>
>Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses.
>Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable
>to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary
>cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second
>to replenish the cm^3.  Given a collection of atomic sized devices located
>in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as
>the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the
>higher ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension micro structure volume
>could resupply the volume initially, with the minor resulting deficit at
>all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe.  This
>conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles
>per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules
>residing in the imaginary cm^3.  If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE
>energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec.,
>or 10,000 W/cm^3.  If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per
>cycle, and we could  extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per
>cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3.
>
>However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum,
>replenishment might be able to happen from the locality as fast as 10^-20
>second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense.  Such
>a local replenishment would depend upon the existance of a mechanism for
>the energy of higher ZPE frequencies being converted to and replenishing
>the frequency band being tapped.  The potential energy release is unlimited
>from any reasonable standpoint.  The real limitations are event density and
>event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend
>upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium.
>
>This is not to say that finding a method of extracting any net energy is
>easy.  Though the ZPE sea abounds, it is very difficult to extract the
>energy from it.  This is possibly the main value to the AE concept.  If
>there is any truth to the idea that ZPE provides the support for orbitals,
>then ZPE does interact with our environment in a big way continuously.
>Massive energy exchanges occur in springs, sonic devices, etc., simply from
>orbital deformation. Enormous forces can be involved and enormous energies,
>even in the compression and expansion of relatively cold systems, like
>metal lattices.  The intended method of extracting energy from the massive
>ZPE sea is to cause orbital expansion to occur in a confined space, thus
>creating extreme orbital deformation without supplying the deforming energy
>to the process.  This is like manufacturing watch springs that are already
>wound.
>
>A PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE
>
>1)  An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice.  This can be
>accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis.
>
>2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially
>imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice.
>
>3)  The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band.
>If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond
>and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from
>a conduction band.  The net result is an electron from the locality is
>taken up by the ion.
>
>4)  An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion.
>
>5)  As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a
>photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released -
>heating the local environment.
>
>6)  As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear
>dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all
>directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not
>accommodate the size of the de-ionized product.  Further expansion of the
>de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on
>the lattice.  The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived
>solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing.  However, unlike a
>collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied.  The energy

>is supplied from the ZPE sea.
>
>
>
>ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES
>
>Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not
>with the efficiency of a metal lattice.  A conducting liquid, like mercury,
>would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE
>would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting
>force of a molecular bond.  The force resisting the AE would still be
>exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced
>per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE
>resisting force.
>
>Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in
>a gas.  The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring
>the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from
>the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital.  A negative balance in
>ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He)  must be overcome using the kinetic
>energy of the collision.
>
>Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low
>energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate.  Here again, the
>AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being
>accelerated upon its rebound from the plate.
>
>
>EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS
>
>1)  Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas).
>This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via
>RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement.
>
>2)  The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron
>from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion.  In the event one of the
>other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is
>required to strip the electron, and the post collision noble gas atom may
>still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital
>forms during the collision.
>
>3)  An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of
>the ion.  The expansion, fueled by ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms
>in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses.
>
>4)  As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one
>or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn
>ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment.
>
>5)  The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied
>to their shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via
>the normal elastic collision mechanism.
>
>6)  Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released,
>gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially.
>
>The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+
>orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional
>kinetic energy to both.
>
>
>WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN?
>
>The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the
>alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading.  I suggest that in the initial
>loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is, as suggested by others, alternately
>in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form.  It is primarily ionically
>bound to the lattice, especially when in motion.  An H atom almost fits
>inside a tetrahedral lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals
>between cells.  In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H
>molecules, and in such a state, diffusion between cells requires
>displacement of some H molecules, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked,
>and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or
>its tunneling out of the way.  Some degree of H confinement upon the
>reconversion from an H+ to H would occur, thus some small AE excess energy
>might be produced in beta phase.   In the gamma phase, H loading would be
>to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2
>molecules in the tetrahedral sites and in the face holes. In looking at the
>geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules, it appears such a formation is
>possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 2 percent.  This
>would, however, imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would
>dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation,
>or "expansion".
>
>Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of
>the Ni lattice:
>
>H atomic radius:     .79 �
>H covalent radius    .32 �
>H2 bond length       .7414 �
>
>Ni atomic radius    1.62 �
>Ni covalent radius  1.15 �
>Ni bond length      2.4916 �
>
>>From this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius
>0.2885 � and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius
>0.6118 �. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the
>tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole.  In fact, the H2
>atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond
>length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) = .063 �.  This is an increase in bond length of
>about 2.5 percent.  Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the
>tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat,
>to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms
>can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a tri-jawed anvil - popping the
>H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces.
>Such an expansion is at least inertially constrained, thus AE energy could
>result.  Note that each half of the H2 "dumbbell" resides in a different
>tetrahedral space.  These spaces can act as pistons, i.e the vacuum will
>accumulate zero point energy.  This energy may assist the cracking of the
>H2 by the anvil by exerting a Casimir force on the expanding H orbital
>surface.  Further, when the orbitals of the expanding H and the boundary
>metal atoms make contact, a kind of orbital "blow through" may occur,
>creating free electrons that further heat the lattice.  The H nucleus would
>be accelerated in the direction of the center of its tetrahedral site by
>the expanding H orbital.  This momentum could carry the H nucleus on into
>the next tetrahedral site, thus ZPE may help facilitate the H diffusion.
>Sufficient energy might momentarily create an H "supermolecule," two H
>nuclei orbited by two electrons.   Such events would increase the
>likelihood of fusion, if only a small amount.  Maximizing the ZPE
>extraction via these means would mean loading the lattice at a (or
>eventually heating it to a) temperature near the melting point of the Ni in
>order to permit maximum occupation of the triangular face holes by H2
>atoms.  Similar arguments apply to the Pd-D system.
>
>The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a
>mechanism:
>
>Elem.   Bond   Covalent Atomic  Face Hole   Tetrahedral
>        Length  Radius  Radius  Radius      Space Radius
>         (A)      (A)    (A)     (A)           (A)
>Ge      2.4498   1.22   1.52    0.1944        0.5123
>Pt      2.7460   1.30   1.83    0.2854        0.6417
>Ni      2.4916   1.15   1.62    0.2885        0.6118
>Cu      2.5560   1.17   1.57    0.3057        0.6373
>Pd      2.7511   1.28   1.79    0.3083        0.6653
>Au      2.8841   1.34   1.79    0.3251        0.6993
>Ag      2.8894   1.34   1.75    0.3282        0.7031
>Al      2.8630   1.25   1.82    0.4030        0.7744
>Ce      3.6500   1.65   2.70    0.4573        0.9309
>Yb      3.8800   1.74   2.40    0.5001        1.0035
>Ca      3.9470   1.74   2.23    0.5388        1.0509
>Pb      3.5003   1.47   1.81    0.5509        1.0051
>Sr      4.3020   1.91   2.45    0.5738        1.1319
>
>Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially
>that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the
>suggested anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an
>approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing
>the Schroedinger Equation, is required.  It is especially noteworthy that
>Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard
>temperatures.  The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a
>face hole and also being capable of anvil pressure on the bond appear to be
>Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required.  Also, the less
>pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt
>and Cu.  Note also that above Al in the table, the H atom, having a radius
>of 0.79 �, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without
>orbital deformation.  This would greatly diminish the free energy
>generating potential.
>
>The AEH  model also may explain why various discharge tubes, especially
>those containing H2 or He, appear to produce excess energy.   The ions are
>injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic
>expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized
>shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the
>impinging and reflecting particles at the surface.  The source of the AE
>energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some
>degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE
>surface effect expansion.
>
>The AEH may also explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce
>excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation
>bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into
>the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand,
>undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy, to the collapsing
>pressure wall.
>
>The AEH may also explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing
>water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially
>create AE energy.
>
>Here are some ionization potentials of interest:
>
>H   13.598
>C   11.260
>CO  14.014
>CO2 13.773
>
>Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between
>H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2.  Note that the AE
>reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the
>production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the
>second O from the CO2.  Two things are bothersome about this concept
>though.  One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed
>in chemistry long ago.  Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a
>noble gas are used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the
>kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the
>probability of such a bond.  The main difficulty, though, is that the
>shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a
>repulsive force.  AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction.
>Perhaps one difficulty answers the other.  In any event, He++ would make a
>more logical AE generator than H+ in this application.  The He would act as
>an energy booster, and thereby as a kind of catalyst, in cracking the H2O
>and CO2 bonds.  Such a process may work best at very low voltages and high
>frequencies, especially in a manner similar to that suggested by Puharich
>(Ref. 8) for cracking water.  His method adapted to a steam/CO2
>environment, catalyzed by He, could assist in the production of water gas.
>Such a gas could be used, within a sealed glass envelope containing both
>discharges, to feed oscillations (due to operation in the negative
>resistance range) of a higher voltage arc or electric discharge, to produce
>electrical energy directly, without mechanical devices.
>
>
>SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA?
>
>This model results in some concrete design suggestions:
>
>1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as
>efficiently as possible.
>
>2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably
>conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure.
>
>3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium.
>
>4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably
>extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas
>before repeating the cycle.
>
>
>SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS
>
>1)  Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium
>for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly.  Mercury also
>conducts electricity well.  Other metals could be used at higher
>temperatures; however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be
>good as it would increase the power demand.  The increased power would have
>to be utilized to result in more ionizations.  The simplest possible test
>device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 or He with a point anode at
>the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency
>high voltage pulsed DC current.  An improvement might be to use two anode
>electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge
>between the anodes to do the ionization.
>
>2)  Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy
>of the gas.  An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very
>good anode.
>
>3)  It may be possible to use water as a cathode.  The atomic expansion may
>assist in boiling the water at the surface.  The water could provide it's
>own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode.  It might be
>good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination.  An electrolyte
>would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity.
>
>4)  Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done
>under extreme pressure.  Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move
>pistons.  Additional process stages could be added for recombination and
>heat recovery.  Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would
>come from the ZPE sea.
>
>5)  As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited
>mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over
>unity results.
>
>6)  The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under
>water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods
>altogether.  This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam)
>into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and
>H2 in the arc.  The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in
>reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling
>process.  This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as
>the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or
>CO2, and will not bond with it.
>
>
>REFERENCES
>
>1.  H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p. 52 (28
>July 1990).
>
>2.  H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
>Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266
>(1987).
>
>3.  D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the
>Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 48, p. 1562 (1993).
>
>4.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum:  Implications for Energy
>Research," Spec. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990).
>
>5.  Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70,
>August 1985
>
>6.  Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?",
>American Scientist, March-April 1980, p. 154
>
>7.  H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy
>Research",  Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.
>247-257, 1990.
>
>8.  US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER
>MOLECULES," Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and
>Schweitzer
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 17 23:59:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07756;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:58:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:58:13 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b2782d7ff85c [208.228.222.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:04:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"2AjW5.0.6v1.LudKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24706
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Isn't north Ga near one of the tritium plants in the world?  What happens if
>tritium gets into the water?

Bill,

Please snip out unnecessay quoted material, especially  from large posts.
You are making me feel guilty for making too large a post.  8^)

There were stories about contamination in groundwater in NC.  Same is true
regarding the TVA in Tennessee.  Don't know how true or to what extent the
spread could have occurred.

It seems far more likely at this point the overunity result is an artifact
due to the differing airflow in the GA tesing facility, IMHO.  The ambient
air flow must differ considerbaly betwen the NH and GA tests.  It is most
likely going to take a closed airflow plus a dual method calorimeter to
cleanly sort out the true answers.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 03:46:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA23411;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:44:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:44:28 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981118115115.00eb483c popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:51:15 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: FWD: Re: Hydroxy research
Resent-Message-ID: <"jDXK-2.0.jj5.RChKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24707
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex;

I thought that you may find this interesting.

Dennis


>Dear TR,
>
>I can't thank you enough for just this type of hard earned & succinct info.
>Your post answered so many of my questions. I will do these experiments &
>get back to you soon. See other comments below.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Chris
>
>At 06:32 AM 11/9/98 -0800, you wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>We used heavy, welding transformer cores, for our power supplies, with
>>rectified output to get the DC current, and we could not understand how,
>>when we took prototypes from the bench top, to the in chaise mounted
>>design, how we were getting about 1/3 better efficiencies.  Not until we
>>placed our hand on the heavily vibrating enclosure.  We were just agitating
>>the plates so that the bubbles were bounced off the surface sooner, thus
>>making available, more surface area, sooner.  We were just breaking down
>>the capillary effect of the bubbles sticking to the plate face.  Some way
>>to get find a 30% breakthrough in efficiencies?
>>
>
>>From George Wiseman's tape it appears that the Chinese Brown's welder
>(BN200?) did not use a transformer but instead an appropriate number of
>series cells were run directly form the grid via rectifiers - assume this
>machine was not as efficient as the ones housed with xformers?
>
>Treating water with magnets might also give different results. I believe
>this is also mentioned in the Horvath patent. I have been experimenting
>with the effects on water for improving taste. Blind tests have shown
>definite change in taste etc. once I get a good feel for these cells I will
>pursue this avenue as magnets are another interest of mine.
>
>>I hope this gives you some answers about the basics of electrolyses.
>>
>
>It certainly did.
>
>>More to follow.
>>
>Looking forword to it.
>
>>All the best
>>
>>TR Knudtson
>>
>>
>
>
>


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 03:46:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA23448;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:44:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:44:36 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981118115117.00e79d24 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="iso-8859-1"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:51:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: WATER JET CUTTING 
  SYSTEMS(http://www.usjetting.thomasregister.com/olc/usjettin
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id DAA23376
Resent-Message-ID: <"ReQuy.0.Ek5.ZChKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24708
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:07 AM 11/17/98 -0600, you wrote:
>"Dennis C. Lee" wrote:
>> I was fooling with the script commands in 3DStudio MAX and discovered how to
>> input math functions to generate complex precision 3D solid geometries like
>> a Kudu antelope horn tube. All we need now is access to a stereolithographic
>> rapid prototyping machine to splat together the investment casting cores.
>
>All it takes is money.... 8^)

The first section below took me over an hour per sentence to write. That
much time doesn't seem right somehow, does it? Any comments?

____________________________________________________________________________


Final Suggestion

	I have identified several discrepancies, in MHFA documents, as to whether
the Piano Craft Guild Associates are in full compliance with all
obligations, in regard to the MHFA Mortgage, Interest Subsidy Contract, and
Regulatory Agreement. In addition, BRA documentation irregularities must
also be addressed.
	Establishment of the Piano Factory Art Foundation in accordance with the
terms specified below will be accepted as fair consideration for the above
referenced interferences, conflicts, and regulation violations; further
investigations and inquires, by appropriate agents, into these matters will
thereby be canceled.
	Failure to allow time needed for said investigations to come to completion,
or refusal to allow the establishment of  the Piano Factory Art Foundation
as specified, is a violation of consideration and mutual assent elements
required in the formation of a lawful contract. Any signing of contracts
under such circumstances, will result in relentless investigations and
litigations of these matters until said contracts are voided.


Outline Of Piano Factory Art Foundation Structure

The Piano Factory Art Foundation will be established with complete above
board legal paper work. Dennis C. Lee will be only officer of the foundation
until suitable people can be found to fill organization positions.

The Piano Factory building monthly cash flow rental income will provide
$10,000.00 per month to finance the Art Foundation. All transactions will be
above board and public record. Building management is first choice to handle
accounting responsibilities of the Foundation.

Dennis C. Lee will move into a 3 bedroom unit, when available, which will be
rent free in return for establishing and running the Art Foundation. Until
unit is available, present unit will be credited with equivalent rent
reduction. Present unit will be retained for Foundation requirements.

Residents of the Piano Factory will have first preference in grant awards.

Dennis C. Lee will establish grant guidelines in the spirit of Objective Art
theory.

Dennis C. Lee will consult artists receiving grant awards on advanced math
and physics concepts if the recipients request so.

These terms will be written in to covenants running with the Piano Factory
property land on a permanent continuous basis regardless of ownership.


Dennis C. Lee


http://www.lawlead.com/florida/law/contcon.html#50
________________________________________________________________________

>3DStudio MAX?  Been looking at several programs lately, but I don't recall
>seeing that one.  Any information you can forward to me offline?

Offline? Why, is the CIA watching us still?

http://www.ktx.com/

Kinetix branched off from Autodesk after 3DStudio R4. 3DStudio MAX 2.5 is
very compatible with AutoCad R14. MAX has great NURBS commands. Working on a
patent of a vehicle design for a client; it's real swoopy.


>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    John E. Steck
>      Senior Mechanical Engineer
>      Rapid Tooling Applications
>      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>    Copyright � 1998 John E. Steck.
>    DNA

Am I leaking DNA into my messages somehow?

>and data contained herein presented in good faith 
>    and at face value for reference only. No warranty of 
>    fitness for a particular purpose guaranteed or implied. 
>    All rights reserved. Notice does not imply publication.

Is there a law which makes this disclaimer necessary?

Regards;
Dennis




Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 04:57:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA09752;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:55:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:55:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3652CBBA.1B00 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:29:30 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target
References: <005001be1226$354dc920$88b4bfa8 default> <36518E1D.E6F@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1A5Qb.0.IO2.VFiKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24709
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 18, 1998
 
Vortex, Fred Sparber suggested:
 
>Also it might get interesting to hit a Boron 10-Carbide target with a
>Jet of D2O, which would allow a Fissioning of Boron 10 with any
>low-energy-spallation neutrons that come off the Deuterium.

I agreed, why not? But I had in mind doing this with the suggestion of
colliding charged deuterium hitting the Boron 10-Carbide target from
both sides so the spallating neutrons may interact with the colliding
deuterium (gas/liquid).

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 05:32:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA18925;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:31:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:31:04 -0800
Message-ID: <008601be12f7$20d366e0$5ebd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:26:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"PY52T3.0.dd4.OmiKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24710
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target

Akira wrote:


>November 18, 1998
>
>Vortex, Fred Sparber suggested:
>
>>Also it might get interesting to hit a Boron 10-Carbide target with a
>>Jet of D2O, which would allow a Fissioning of Boron 10 with any
>>low-energy-spallation neutrons that come off the Deuterium.
>
>I agreed, why not? But I had in mind doing this with the suggestion of
>colliding charged deuterium hitting the Boron 10-Carbide target from
>both sides so the spallating neutrons may interact with the colliding
>deuterium (gas/liquid).

The thermal neutron fission cross-section of Boron 10 is about 5-7 Orders of
Magnitude greater than the D-D reactions. That is why they use Boron 10 in
safety applications in reactors.

They used tons of Borax in trying to "cool down" the Chernobyl (sp)
disaster.

Regards,    Frederick
>
>-AK-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 06:11:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA03118;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:09:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:09:13 -0800
Sender: jack pop.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <36528C04.639C4345 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:57:40 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hello! (test)
References: <l03130302b278239e9055 [12.72.128.142]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kapsU1.0.em.8KjKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24711
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:12:09 -1000
> To: VortexB-L <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
> From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Hello! (test)
> 
> Anybody in here? This only a test.
> 
> Rick Monteverde, Honolulu, HI

Hi All,

Since there seems to be practically no traffic
on Vortex B, why not make Vortex B the experimentalist
list?

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:29:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02009;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:28:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:28:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118092717.0077d640 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:27:17 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118013403.00ac2350 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118000400.00690f1c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lbXKN.0.FV.HUkKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24712
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:34 11/18/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>Third, just this afternoon, Scott Little sent me email confirming that Jed 
>is wrong, and that Scott knew EXACTLY "how many watts" the reported device
>did produce. 

Damn it, Mitchell.  I was referring to ONE instance back in May when you said:

>Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:04:46 +0000
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>

>  At 12:05 AM, on 1/28/96, after working on our
>fifth conversion generator, and several hundredth experiment, 
>Gayle Verner and I achieved a high grade electrical output electric 
>power system actually able to also drive a small light source. 
>The generator, using thermal energy derived secondary to the loading of 
>isotopic fuels into a nickel metal electrode, delivered heat output in
excess 
>of what was applied.  The peak derived high-grade electrical output 
>was ~0.58 watts [~323 milliamperes].  
>The input electrical power was 9.8 watts. 
>The output thermal power was about ~45 watts. 

to which I responded:

>Mitchell, if you can produce a cell with this performance, then you are
the hero that cold fusion research has been waiting for.
>
>You were at ICCF-7.  You heard Martin Fleischman say "no cold fusion
demonstration apparatus exists today".  That is the biggest problem that
cold fusion research has faced throughout its turbulent 9+ year history.
If we just had a cell that reliably worked half as well as you claim above,
EVERYTHING would change....and FAST.
>
>If you will come forth with this cell and allow independent replication of
your observations, I am certain that it would spawn major cold fusion
research programs in the national labs within 6 months.  Hell, Tom Claytor
would have it running in his lab at LANL in 6 days!!!
>
>Mitchell, I strongly urge you to respond directly to this vital issue.
The world is waiting to hear more about your fantastic CF cell.

to which you responded:

>Dr. Fleischmann was correct that people no longer share all
>(and some not even any) of their data and information.
>That is what he meant. You have failed to inform vortex
>and others that repeatedly quote your post that you have been 
>deliberately misquoting Dr. Fleischmann out-of-context from the 
>first sentence of his one hour talk.  Why dont you summarize
>all of his comments, Scott?
>
>   I suggest again, Scott, that you realize that science is slow
>methodical process, and that you attempt to MEASURE things with
>your equipment.  
>
>   Best wishes.
>   Mitchell Swartz

Which I am considering sending to Mr. Webster as an example for the
definition of the word "evasive" for his next edition.

Jed was obviously talking about another of the many exchanges we've had in
the past.  Please leave me out of your fight with him.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:35:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04138;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118103505.00800b50 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:35:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118092717.0077d640 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118013403.00ac2350 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981118000400.00690f1c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"glJc3.0.X01.DZkKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24715
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 09:27 AM 11/18/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>At 01:34 11/18/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>>Third, just this afternoon, Scott Little sent me email confirming that Jed 
>>is wrong, and that Scott knew EXACTLY "how many watts" the reported device
>>did produce. 
>
>Damn it, Mitchell.  I was referring to ONE instance back in May when you
said:
>
>>Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:04:46 +0000
>>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>>From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
>
>>  At 12:05 AM, on 1/28/96, after working on our
>>fifth conversion generator, and several hundredth experiment, 
>>Gayle Verner and I achieved a high grade electrical output electric 
>>power system actually able to also drive a small light source. 
>>The generator, using thermal energy derived secondary to the loading of 
>>isotopic fuels into a nickel metal electrode, delivered heat output in
>excess 
>>of what was applied.  The peak derived high-grade electrical output 
>>was ~0.58 watts [~323 milliamperes].  
>>The input electrical power was 9.8 watts. 
>>The output thermal power was about ~45 watts. 

  Thank you Scott.   Correct.  THAT is what Jed was speaking about.

  Thank you for giving me permission to have it posted.
I would NOT have posted it without your permission since it was
your email.

   As can be seen, the Scott knew EXACTLY "how many watts" 
the reported device did produce. 

   
   QED

     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:36:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04013;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118103515.00806e10 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:35:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Should Jed Rothwell be allowed to self-servingly fabricate?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"r916R3.0.d-.0ZkKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24713
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 12:04 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Here is something for the readers
>of this forum to think about here and now, before we make any changes or
>establish any new rules. The other day I posted a message with paragraphs
>including:
>
>     The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
>     driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and
>     not Joule heating from electrolysis. It may even mean the reactions were
>     self-sustaining (either heat after death or regenerative). After all,
>     what would be the point of describing a cell in which ten watts of Joule
>     heating plus a half watt of cold fusion heat together drive a
>     thermoelectric device? That would be a trivial accomplishment. . . .
>
>     Unless this claim is clarified, quantified, and specific details are
>     provided, I am afraid it does not mean much. Unfortunately, in the past
>     when Scott Little and others have asked Swartz to clarify, he has always
>     refused. He will not even tell us how many watts his devices produce,
>     which is the bare minium information anyone needs to sort out a claim.


    Yesterday afternoon, Scott Little sent me email confirming 
that Jed is wrong, and that Scott knew EXACTLY "how many watts" 
the reported device  did produce. 


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

>My statements regarding Swartz are not polite by any standard, but I think
>they should be allowed in a serious, scientific debate. 


   The politeness is nowhere as important as the blatant 
fact that Rothwells statements are knowingly not true.    

  Jed's inaccuracy here is consistent with what Jed did to Mr. Allen,
and to the late Stanley Meyers.  In fact, reviewing the
hard drive Jed is reported to have been far from accurate in 
other of his comments about other vorts, so this is sad.
Given the above, his comments should have been in vorex-b, 
or elsewhere.

    Jed Rothwell is NOT truthful.   
    Why?  And why does he repeat it
OVER and OVER even AFTER he is informed he is wrong?


      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:37:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04081;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118103524.008075e0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:35:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Should Jed Rothwell be allowed to create his own
  pseudo-crisis?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3qu3-3.0.d_.4ZkKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24714
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 12:04 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitchell Jones suggests this rule:
>
>     (1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided
>     that topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.
>
>I believe the majority and the list owner disagree with the "anything goes"
>philosophy. That is what precipitated this mini-crisis. Actually, you have
>done us a favor, Mitch, by bringing this crisis to a head. You force reforms
>upon us which are long overdue.


 Now why don't all the vorts add up the off-topics by Jed
and compare them quantitatively to this temporary off topic
thread of Mitchell Jones.  

Jed Rothwell has given more (far) off-topic posts
 than Mitchell Jones. 
This pseudo-"crisis" continues to be created
 and fanned by Mr. Rothwell.  


      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:37:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04429;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:34:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:34:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118103549.00800150 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:35:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jed Rothwell ignores the need for calibration?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ISskC2.0._41.LakKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24717
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 12:04 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Low power claims (below a half-watt) are dubious except when reported by
>experts like Miles, and a low power claim from an unconventional, unique
>calorimeter like Swartz's should be automatically rejected out of hand,
>by my stick-in-the-mud conventionalist standards. . . .


   This is stupid. 

  A time-integrating (power, to calculate long term input and
out energy) multiring calormeter with both in situ
joule and chemical controls is no longer unconventional
  -- except to Jed-"I dont need no calibration"-Rothwell.  
  
   Having in situ calibration of any type, and measure the
impulse response of his calorimeter, apparently does not
occur to Jed, but rather threatens his 'stick in the mud' 
calorimeter (without controls).  

      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 07:37:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04234;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:33:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118103540.00808910 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:35:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Should Jed Rothwell be removed from vortex-l for violating
  rules
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"61heA1.0.421.SZkKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24716
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 12:04 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>I personally disagree with the "polite" idea. I have been to many physics
>conferences, and the best  discussions have not always been polite.
>Professional, yes, but often hard hitting. 


  Jed Rothwell has lately increasingly been feeling
quite free to throw inaccurate and unsubstantiated ad hominems.

This is not ONLY improper but demeans Jed Rothwell's
potential for what might be otherwise good prose and
history.  By his own suggested rules, Jed should be removed.


>My statements regarding Swartz are not polite by any standard, but I think
>they should be allowed in a serious, scientific debate. 


   The politeness is nowhere as important as the blatant 
fact that Rothwells statements are knowingly not true.    

  Jed's inaccuracy here is consistent with what Jed did to Mr. Allen,
and to the late Stanley Meyers.  In fact, reviewing the
hard drive Jed is reported to have been far from accurate in 
other of his comments about other vorts, so this is sad.
Given the above, his comments should have been in vortex-b, 
or elsewhere.


      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 08:05:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28901;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:59:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03110700b27892e86965 [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117171445.007feb00 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:50:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell is a liar
Resent-Message-ID: <"NU8Ir1.0.O37.8xkKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24718
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>  It is getting quite tiresome to hear (f)Rothwell
>attack cold fusioneers, including the hardworking Russ George,
>Dr. Martin Fleischmann, and so many other scientists and
>inventors, when Bozo the Clown now has more believability
>than he does.
>
>
> My vote for "Flying PIG of the year" -- that is
>the person who has done the most to hurt cold fusion --
>is none other than: Jed Rothwell.

  I think this attack by Mitchell Swartz is out of line.  At least the
subject line is way off.  I don't know of any case where Jed has lied.  In
fact I would rate Jed's honesty as his strongest point.  Here we have an
individual who is willing to check out free energy devices and then report
his results in a timely and truthful manner.  That is a very rare breed of
person.  How many other people are there who are willing to go out and
investigate these devices and then issue reports that we know we can trust?
I always place the highest weight on Jed's reports because I know that we
can trust his integrity.  When he reports that he tested the kinetic
furnace and got 60% excess energy I believe it. Either there was an
experimental error or there actually was an excess energy.  The question of
Jed lying about it is not an option in my opinion.  Anyone here care to
disagree?
  Of course I can see how some hard working cf investigators might be
irritated at Jed for attacking them.  I think that the attacked
investigators might be better off if they respond to the actual content of
Jed's comments.  He is just trying to get at the truth.  When someone
attacks him rather than the content of his criticism I think that their
credibility suffers.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 08:50:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07963;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118114208.007ff990 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:42:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell misstatements - was ...
In-Reply-To: <v03110700b27892e86965 [128.183.200.195]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981117171445.007feb00 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fj3j82.0.Ly1.wdlKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24719
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



 
At 10:50 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Larry Wharton wrote:
>  In >fact I would rate Jed's honesty as his strongest point.  Here we
have an
>individual who is willing to check out free energy devices and then report
>his results in a timely and truthful manner.


  Larry,

  In case the post was not clear:
  The issue was NOT what Jed Rothwell reports about HIS experiments.

  He should be encouraged in his experiments, and helped to
do them better.  

  It is about his misstatements about other peoples' work, effort,
or good will in their search into a VERY difficult - but important -
area of physics/chemistry/metallurgy/engineering and its
reporting.
      
   Soule.  Fleischmann.  Meyers.   George.   Britz.  
Mizuno.  Allen.  ....

    For starters...  
 
    We need these people.  We need researchers and
reporters of the findings.  
  {We need better controls, materials, ... too ;-) 


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


> When he (Jed) reports that he tested the kinetic
>furnace and got 60% excess energy I believe it. 

   Absolutely your choice, Larry.
  Some of us require confirmatory data.  But that
was NOT the issue.

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


>  Of course I can see how some hard working cf investigators might be
>irritated at Jed for attacking them.  I think that the attacked
>investigators might be better off if they respond to the actual content of
>Jed's comments.  

   The issue was/is this:

  It is very difficult for the late Stanley Meyers to have
defended himself when Jed attacked him after his burial.
It is also difficult for the several individuals
who left vortex after his attacks.  

  IMO, misattribution and misstatements
about other peoples work is not optimal to the search for
cf/zpe/o/u - or even compatible with good science or R&D.

   Have a good day.
    Mitchell Swartz





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:05:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12269;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:01:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:01:42 -0800
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: <3652FD6C.98998BF4 css.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:01:32 -0600
From: John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Rapid Tooling Applications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Farewell & Best Wishes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bgAKj3.0.d_2.rrlKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24720
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Fellow Vorts-

The last link I had bookmarked for Vortex-L is:
   http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html

Seeing as there apparently is no link to it from any of Bill's index pages, and
the rules and instructions for subscribing and unsubscribing are now gone from
it, I am wondering if I have the correct URL.  Going back to the archives 1-2
years back, I am now wondering if I am even on the right list anymore.  

Reflecting on how much I've learned here in the 2+ years and how much this list
and it's members have impacted my life, I doubt I will ever look at anything the
same again.  I am appreciative of the tolerance and companionship this forum has
given me.  I am grateful for the inspirations that have sprung from various
conversations and threads.  It is a debt I will never be able to truly repay. 
Vortex-L has fundamentally changed me and what I will do the rest of my life.

For beginnings, there must be ends, and I find myself at that crossroad.  Not
sure if I've out grown the list, or the list has out grown me, but I don't feel
connected with it anymore.  I am not sure even a re-org will change that.  My
goals and interests no longer seem to fall in step and I think I need to focus
my limited time and and resources elsewhere for a while.

I might come back, but then again I may not.  I will monitor eScribe for
developments, but I do not expect to actively participate again unless something
significant happens.  The parts I dearly love are the same parts I have grown to
loath.  It seems to be the dichotomous nature of most every worthwhile list. 
All things considered, I may just need to take a break to regain my perspective.

Sincerest thanks to most, apologies to some, most humble gratitude to all, past
and present.

Places I can be reached:
  John_Steck css.mot.com
  johnsteck hotmail.com

Coming in December:
  http://www.jumpingspider.com


Signing off.....................


-- 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John E. Steck
      Senior Mechanical Engineer
      Rapid Tooling Applications
      Motorola, Libertyville, IL
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  "Sometimes we can choose the path we follow, 
   sometimes our choices are made for us, 
   and sometimes we have no choice at all."
     -Neil Gaiman "The Sandman"

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:09:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10695;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118120545.00804420 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:05:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118092717.0077d640 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118013403.00ac2350 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981118000400.00690f1c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hCoQF2.0.pc2.pwlKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24721
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 09:27 AM 11/18/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:

>Which I am considering sending to Mr. Webster as an example for the
>definition of the word "evasive" for his next edition.

  Nah.  Evasive might include not answering quantitative questions
about ZPEvacuum's characteristics, or why one would
not go back and examine one's data (eg. Figure 3 showing
the KS-beads) to look for low level quantities of possible
excess heat at levels commensurate with what would be expected.   ;-)

  Have a good day.
   Mitchell


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:21:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18485;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:18:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:18:15 -0800
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <92197d59.3652ffa5 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:11:01 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Experiments list
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236
Resent-Message-ID: <"xGeJK2.0.iW4.N5mKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24722
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In a message dated 11/17/98 2:19:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, little eden.com
writes:

<< .  To this end, it is of
 vital importance that the list membership contain a large population of
 highly qualified scientists.  >>


Hi Scott,

I almost completely agree with your proposal with one minor change.  
Could we include a few of us highly qualified, busy engineers along with you
scientists?
I'd like to keep on looking over your shoulder.

Bob Briggs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:40:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29502;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:38:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:38:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118123458.0068cfac pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:34:58 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OTFcm3.0.qC7.EOmKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24724
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner writes:

     It seems far more likely at this point the overunity result is an
     artifact due to the differing airflow in the GA testing facility, IMHO. 
     The ambient air flow must differ considerably between the NH and GA
     tests.  It is most likely going to take a closed airflow plus a dual
     method calorimeter to cleanly sort out the true answers.

I do not think so. Airflow and ambient temperatures are critical issues. I
checked them extensively, carefully and repeatedly throughout the
afternoon. I moved thermometers around the room searching for differences
in the ambient air temperature. I did not find any as large as one degree
Fahrenheit, except adjacent to heavy machinery and close to the kinetic
furnace outlet duct. In areas three meters away from the duct I saw no
significant temperature differences. I looked carefully for a good spot in
front of the kinetic furnace to measure ambient temperature. (By "in front
of" I mean the area from which the kinetic furnace was drawing cool ambient
air.) I finally settled on the warmest spot two meters away from the front
of the KF that I could find. (A warm spot reduces the Delta T giving a
conservative answer.) This turned out to be a mistake, however, because as
I described it was too close to a heavy machine which affected the
performance of the DTA4000 thermometer. I moved all ambient thermometers
more inside the building, where the air was slightly cooler.

Ed Wall was equally careful to measure ambient air at Bow. Weren't you, Ed?

A flow calorimeter would be more reliable, but it is difficult to imagine
that I made a 4 degree Fahrenheit mistake measuring the difference between
ambient and duct air temperature. If ambient temperatures had varied widely
over a short time span, I would not have conducted the test. I spent most
of the three and a half hours I was there checking repeatedly for differing
airflow and other ambient temperature  problems. I was walking around the
room waving thermometer probes like a guy dousing for oil. When ambient
temperatures began to change rapidly as the sun went down, I terminated the
test. (Well, also because I had to eat.)

Despite the fact that the doors to the steel building were open, this was a
good location to perform this test. The building is a large quite large,
the air was quiescent and there was little activity inside -- just a few
people working quietly on motors and the precision aluminum fabrication
machinery. There were no large blowers or hot, heavy equipment in
operation. The building was so large that the operation of the 5 kW kinetic
furnace hardly affected the overall air temperature. It was like testing a
model airplane in a quiet hanger -- something I have been  longing to do
since I moved into this building on the grounds of the Peachtree DeKalb
airport.

- Jed


[BY THE WAY: Someone tell me off-line, is this message properly formatted
to fit 80 column text? How about the indented paragraph quoting Heffner?]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:40:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29463;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:38:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:38:20 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118114425.0068d984 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:44:25 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: A consensus emerges?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vecGD3.0.GC7.BOmKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24723
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It seems to me a quick consensus has emerged on a workable plan, as follows.


A THREE TIERED SYSTEM

A three tiered system will be instituted immediately consisting of the three
mail list groups: Vortcore eskimo.com, Vortex-L@eskimo.com,
VortexB-L eskimo.com.


Vortcore

Vortcore will be devoted to core, on-topic reports of experimental results,
conference announcements, abstracts, and obituaries if we do not start making
significant progress in this field.

Perhaps short discussions or questions about those results should also go to
Vortcore? For example, a report on my recent measurements of the kinetic
furnace would be appropriate to this forum, and so would Heffner's comment
about air mixing. However, if I choose to respond to the air mixing comment
that makes it a discussion which should slide into vortex-L (where in fact I
plan to put a response if I get around to it.)

This is somewhat arbitrary. Scott Little is the one who wants the Vortcore
forum for low-traffic technical reports only, so perhaps he should tell us
where he thinks the comment like Heffner's should go. He should define a few
short ground rules or Instructions to Authors as a publisher would say. I have
no opinion.


Vortex-L

This is where serious discussions about experimental results are held.
Wide-ranging discussions are allowed, such as my occasional history essay.
Arguments are definitely allowed, as long as they remain on topic. I am
allowed to say that Swartz's thermoelectric claim has not been replicated and
he has not supplied enough information to flesh it out. He is allowed to
respond in his inimitable fashion which does so much to promote cold fusion
with the public.

Does everyone agree that this sort of argument is allowed? More to the point,
does Bill Beaty agree? We need to settle this issue.

How about wide-ranging discussions about business and investing in cold
fusion? Let us have a reading on this, folks.

I think that further policy discussions about this reform proposal, and
proposed changes to the charter should also be placed on vortex-L.


VortexB-L

"B" as in "bullshit." The water cooler. Anything that Bill Beaty would not
mind in his living room is allowed. Rowdy jokes, conspiracy theories IF YOU
MUST, discussions of my adventures with NatSpeak voice input, computer backup
tapes and rewritable CD-ROMs.

These distinctions are fluid and may change during a discussion. For example,
the CD-ROM discussion might move to vortex-L if an experimenter asks me
whether my Hewlett-Packard CD-ROM would be suitable for recording data during
experiment. (Answer: no, you best record on a hard disk, but the CD-ROM is a
great tool for sharing large data sets.)


ARCHIVING

I suppose messages from Vortcore and Vortex-L will be archived in separate
files, and Vortex-B messages will fall into that great bit bucket in the sky.
This will make it easier to find substantive information in the archives.

If Bill Beaty has to pay a great deal to make the archives available, I could
download them and supply them on CD-ROM for a nominal fee.


CUTTING OFF OBNOXIOUS DISCUSSIONS

If someone starts an obnoxious discussion in the B area is easy enough to
unsubscribe or redirect all messages into the garbage. I do not think we need
extensive rules, or the anti-flame or anti-theory legislation Bill placed on
freenrg-L. The only rule is: when two or three people ask you to move to
another tier, you move.


NOTES

The e-mail addresses should remain "v-o-r-t" bla-bla, to allow automatic
processing.

Someone else should revise the Charter. Someone who is not sitting with a
splint on his right hand typing via NatSpeak!

With my computer it would be a cinch to vector all B messages into the
garbage. I must say though, yesterday I began using Eudora  intensively for
the first time, and I now understand why people complain about having to wade
through messages. It is a chore to sort through mail with these Windows mail
programs. All that clicking and pointing! I  wrote a macro and a short program
to transfer Eudora files into WordPerfect, which makes it far easier to scroll
through messages to skip the inconsequential ones, and sort them into
different categories. A word processor like WordPerfect has good macro tools.
I would hate to deal with a large stream of text any other way.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 09:44:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA31567;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:42:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:42:52 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:42:49 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell is a liar
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981117165751.007fccb0 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981118091344.27016C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Er7nR2.0.9j7.SSmKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24725
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> >You are as bad as Mitch Swartz who has a conniption
> >fit when an innocuous soul like Scott Little asks him many watts his
> >device produces. As if it mattered! As if anyone cares!


>  Jed Rothwell = IDIOT & LIAR 
>  
>  Take your BS to spf from where you cower as Mitchell Jones
> correctly stated, or to vortex-B where your nonsense belongs
> as Bill Beaty requested.
> 
>  You, Rothwell, are a fraud who has hurt cold fusion internationally.


Since the rules are undergoing revision, I'm not going to punish
transgressors for the moment.  If the Swartz/Rothwell fight goes on for
more than a day, it should be moved to vortexb-L. 

In the past, Dr. Swartz has informed me that he believes that I
selectively enforce the Vortex-L rules, favoring Jed's violations.  I
think this is a misunderstanding of my goals: stopping of flamewars by
specifically giving warnings to people who use NAMECALLING.  If
namecalling is removed, flamewars become nearly impossible.  It's a bit
hard for people to recognize the existence of a flamewar (the participants
often argue that they're just having a heated discussion.)  Therefor I
usually single out the people who use namecalling.

The past few messages are a good example.  Look at Jed's words.  He finds
fault with Dr. Swartz' ACTIONS, and his messages probably are seen as
intentional insults by Dr. Swartz.  Look at Dr. Swartz' words.  He calls
Jed nasty names.  I would prefer that both sides be respectful of their
opponent, and nobody send messages which could give insult.  But if I was
to take action, I would come down MUCH harder on Dr. Swartz because of the
namecalling.  But perhaps my criteria for enforcing rules are not very
clear (although the ban on NAMECALLING is clearly stated in the vortex-L
rules.)

A second issue: anyone who clearly violates the Vortex-L rules loses all
credibility with me.  I will ignore all their complaints about the
violations of others.  Therefor, the best way to fight someone on vortex-L
is to refuse to get mad, to adopt a sort of selfless lawyer/saint mode of
debate, maintain respect the opponent and strip your postings of insults,
but then craft eloquent arguments which clearly expose the shameful and
destrutive actions of the opponent.  If they respond with rage and
namecalling, guess who has won?  Guess who will be chastized by the
moderator?


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:10:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09801;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:06:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:06:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199811181804.NAA20228 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:08:31 -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: <"1MBry.0.hO2.vomKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24726
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Jed wrote re KF testing:

> Ed Wall was equally careful to measure ambient air at Bow. Weren't you,
Ed?

For all tests, at least two ambient temperatures were recorded.  One was
recorded every 30 seconds or minute that was placed about two feet in front
of the 'intake'.  The other thermometer was about 15 feet away from the
unit and almost always read the same temperature.  The room was almost
always closed for testing.  The ceiling is ~30' high and the room is large,
so it took several hours to warm the air.  It seems silly to think about
some coherent channel of warm air making its way from the exhaust to the
intake that bypassed both thermometers.  The exhaust was channeled 8' in a
wooden duct (mea culpa: I stated 10' in earlier posts) and directed past
some partitions where it struck another partition that diverted it up and
sideways.  I did not go to any further lengths because that thermocouple in
front of the intake was calibrated and found to be within 0.1C of the
others for almost the whole range of temperatures for this test, also, the
results were not anomalous.  I will make more careful measurements in GA,
including the use of 3 NIST-traceable Hg thermometers with 0.1F resolution,
first to be used in thermocouple calibration, then for monitoring ambient
air temperature.  I will also automatically record more ambient
thermocouples near intake air.
> 
> A flow calorimeter would be more reliable, but it is difficult to imagine
> that I made a 4 degree Fahrenheit mistake measuring the difference
between
> ambient and duct air temperature. 

And we do plan to do a form of flow calorimetry on this device once we have
established the existence of a reliable phenomenon.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:28:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23626;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118132156.00809dc0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:21:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's misstatements 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981118091344.27016C-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981117165751.007fccb0 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"LlGCt1.0.4n5.J5nKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24727
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 09:42 AM 11/18/98 -0800, William Beaty wrote:

>The past few messages are a good example.  Look at Jed's words.  He finds
>fault with Dr. Swartz' ACTIONS, and his messages probably are seen as
>intentional insults by Dr. Swartz. 

  Jed Rothwell incorrectly claimed first there were "no
publications" and he was wrong by a very very large factor.  
He was inaccurate.


  Then he false claimed we did not list power levels in a 
past thermoelectric conversion post.  He was inaccurate there, too.

   Previously, Jed claimed Meyers said things he apparently
did not, and even interferred with Court proceedings according
to some. There was inaccuracy there as well.

  Previously Jed called so many people "frauds" that they have 
left vortex according to THEM, and they WERE contributing.

  Thus, it is not fault with "ACTIONS",
but Jed's falsification of ACTIONS.
  There IS a differenc. 

  Hope that helps.
    Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:25:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15134;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:23:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:23:59 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130302b278c03f5d23 [12.64.4.117]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118114425.0068d984 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:20:30 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: A consensus emerges?
Resent-Message-ID: <"ynDLH.0.Ki3.-2nKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24728
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed -

The address for vortcor is:

vortcor-list eskimo.com

I think you had something different in your post.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:42:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20894;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:04 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:59:46 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell misstatements - was ...
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811181337_MC2-60A3-855E compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"rfeEb.0.A65.9GnKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24731
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz:

>>  Stanley Meyers <<

At least get his name right - Oh, and he was a con-man as I told him to his
face when he tried it on over here.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:42:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20774;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:37:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:37:32 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:33:18 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811181336_MC2-60A3-850A compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ab75f3.0.W45.hFnKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24729
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>> the vena contracta

Yes, that is what I was refering to. <<

>> In any case I would have thought that there would be quite enough waste
energy in the nozzle friction to prevent freezing, even if they used
sapphire.

I believe a laminar boundary forms at the nozzle wall eliminating most of
it.  I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that the wear profile would
be too high otherwise. <<

I have plenty of experience designing nozzles, and I can assure you that if
you get the profile of the inlet section and the exit aspect ratio correct,
the VC is ironed out within the nozzle.

As far as the wear characteristics is concerned, it is down to the
formulation of the material of the nozzle wrt the fluid and pressure.  The
boundary layer at the sort of pressures and Reynolds Nos we are talking
about will be almost molecular in thickness, (assuming water as the fluid).

>> I do recall one hell of a charge can build up if the nozzle if not
properly
grounded though. <<

Depends on the conductivity of the fluid, but even ordinary tap water with
2000 bar behind it sparks like a grinding wheel as it hits a target!

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:42:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20942;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:10 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:59:46 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell is a liar
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811181337_MC2-60A3-855D compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"9nQVn2.0.265.9GnKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24730
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> The question of Jed lying about it is not an option in my opinion. 
Anyone here care to disagree?
  Of course I can see how some hard working cf investigators might be
irritated at Jed for attacking them.  I think that the attacked
investigators might be better off if they respond to the actual content of
Jed's comments.  He is just trying to get at the truth.  When someone
attacks him rather than the content of his criticism I think that their
credibility suffers.

Lawrence E. Wharton <<

My several years contact with Jed have shown me that he does NOT lie.  He
may not be the best experimenter in the world, as he would be the first to
admit, but he is genuinely trying to get at the truth wrt CF and OU.  Jed
is probably the best informed non-scientist as far as CF and associated
matters are concerned since the sad death of Chris Tinsley, and I for one
resent the vituperation unjustly being aimed at him in this list.

Those of us who know Jed well, realize that he can get somewhat
over-enthusiastic and verbose when fired up, but we allow for that, knowing
his real motivation. IMHO, he deserves an apology from Mitchell Swartz.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:44:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23064;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:40:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:40:53 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b278c193ad18 [12.64.4.117]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:37:21 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Schwartz's CF electric generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"0DRkR1.0.Ce5.qInKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24732
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

Ok, I admit I've had a hard time picking through the ashes of this flamewar
for bits of detail and content. So if there's some fundamental flaws in the
very nature of my questions to follow, please don't call me any names I
don't *truly* deserve, or slam me for not paying attention. Even when I
*am* paying careful attention to detailed posts, my memory can be defective
on certain points.

 * Are you willing to post here on vortex the particulars of what would
appear from what descriptions I've been able to glean here is indeed the
holy grail for this stage of the CF saga? That is, a basic description of
the device along with experimental values, i.e., the much flame-disputed
PIN & POUT figures.

 * Would you be able to post a fairly complete description of the
calorimeter and measurement techniques you use on this device?

 * Has this device been replicated by your own group (or anyone else)?

 * What is the status of the device now - does it still exist and work, or
has it been modified or dismantled?

 * Will this device be shown publicly at any upcoming venue?

 * Will full details of this device be disclosed so that others may
replicate it?

 * If no to above, what are the plans for this device?



Thanks.


- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 10:45:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24014;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:41:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:41:54 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: William Beaty <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:41:42 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7626.2148.17962328 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981118091344.27016C-100000 eskimo.com>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell is a liar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"ERSAc.0.8t5.nJnKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24733
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 18-Nov-98, William Beaty wrote:

>Since the rules are undergoing revision, I'm not going to punish
>transgressors for the moment.  If the Swartz/Rothwell fight goes on for
>more than a day, it should be moved to vortexb-L. 

 As my mom has said, having a bunch of PhD's behind your name, doesn't
 mean that you have a whole lot of common sense :(

I'm preparing to follow John Steck,
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 11:06:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA31548;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:58:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:58:09 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36530A46.55FE ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:56:22 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target
References: <008601be12f7$20d366e0$5ebd2299 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WSfY43.0.oi7.1ZnKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24734
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 18, 1998

Vortex,

It seems that I misread Fred's earlier post. I took him to say that
Boron-10 spallated low energy neutrons rather that Boron-10, 'absorbs'
those possibly coming out of deuterium on impact of D2O with the target.

Then, I would have a doughnut ring of Boron-10 around the point where
the charged deuteron collisions takes place --- as a safety measure. Not
knowing results, I would be tempted to try the collisions without
Boron-10 first. 

Can calculations be made to see if a charged collision deuteron fusion
reaction is possible within realistic experimental parameters? I know
next to nothing of such calculations.

-ak-

> The thermal neutron fission cross-section of Boron 10 is about 5-7 >Orders of Magnitude greater than the D-D reactions. That is why they >use Boron 10 in safety applications in reactors.
> 
> They used tons of Borax in trying to "cool down" the Chernobyl (sp)
> disaster.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 11:12:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03782;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:10:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:10:27 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118140902.0068df90 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:09:02 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Request policy decision!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nZEmI3.0.xw.XknKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24735
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill Beaty has raised the critical issue. I would like the policy ruling on
this. He wrote:

     The past few messages are a good example.  Look at Jed's words.  He
     finds fault with Dr. Swartz' ACTIONS, and his messages probably are seen
     as intentional insults by Dr. Swartz.

The insults were a side effect. I was trying to point out that his claims are
excessively vague, not quantified, and not replicated. Some scientists would
be insulted by those statements; others would readily agree and take no
offense. I can well imagine someone like Mizuno saying: "yes, you are right. I
have just begun the experiments and I haven't had time to quantify the
thermoelectric conversion process. I do not know how many watts the cell is
producing or how much of the heat going into the thermoelectric device comes
from Joule heating and how much comes from cold fusion." A person with that
attitude would not find my words insulting.

I also said that Swartz is alienating investors. Again, some people would be
insulted, others would call me on the telephone and ask me to arrange an
interview with these investors. (Which I would gladly do!) Again, it boils
down to attitude.

I know from experience that Swartz will take offense where others would not,
so I often ignore his claims. I treat him with kid gloves. In this case,
someone was asking about thermoelectric conversion, and it was apparent that
the questioner did not know much about the subject. I thought that Swartz's
statements were somewhat misleading and might confuse the questioner, so I
thought I should step in and clarify the situation. This is very much
on-topic. Thermoelectric conversion is a critical issue in this field. If
Swartz has accomplished what he claims, or seems to claim, it would be
extraordinary and one of the most important developments in this field. So, I
think his statements do call for careful analysis. If he was talking about a
minor issue like thermocouple calibration procedures, I would not bother to
challenge him, no matter how much I disagreed.

The question is, should I put such hard-hitting critiques on Vortcore, or
Vortex-L, VortexB-L, or is this sort of thing too controversial for this
forum?

This is what I was asking the other day. I quoted the first message:

     The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
     driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat . . .

(and bla, bla) and I asked:

     Would this be acceptable on Channel 1? Or does it go over the line? I'll
     move it to Channel 2 if the readers demand. . . . I would like
     clarification on this policy.

I will go along with whatever policy is set. I ask only for a clear decision.
It is a nuisance, but perhaps Bill Beaty or someone else could review my
messages on this topic and point out specific portions that should be excluded
in the future, or moved to vortexB-L. Let's make this a test case to guide
future policy. We have already heard what Swartz would prefer. I think someone
else should offer an opinion.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 11:29:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10594;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:28:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:28:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118143003.00808100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:30:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
In-Reply-To: <l03130303b278c193ad18 [12.64.4.117]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Prt8U1.0.Qb2.K_nKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24736
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 08:37 AM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>> * Are you willing to post here on vortex the particulars of what would
>appear from what descriptions I've been able to glean here is indeed the
>holy grail for this stage of the CF saga? That is, a basic description of
>the device along with experimental values, i.e., the much flame-disputed
>PIN & POUT figures.

  We prefer to patent and publish in peer reviewed journals 
before discussing here usually, although I have put some
preliminary manuscripts up on the web on a limited basis to
obtain ideas, comments and criticisms.  


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


> * Would you be able to post a fairly complete description of the
>calorimeter and measurement techniques you use on this device?

  Here again is the relevant partial list of publications.
 These describe the calorimeter and measurement techniques:

Swartz. M., 1997, "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy 
in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model 
of Isotope Loading into a Material" Fusion Technology. 31, 63-74.

Swartz. M., 1997, "Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using 
Nickel Cathodes". lECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009

SWARTZ, M., 1998, PATTERNS OF FAILURE  IN COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS, 
Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on 
Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, 1998.

Swartz, M, 1997, "Noise Measurement in cold fusion systems, 
Journal of New Energy, 2, 2, 56-61. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Definitions Of Power Amplification Factor", 
J New Energy, 2, 54-59. 

Swartz, M, 1998,  "Optimal Operating Point  Characteristics of 
Nickel Light Water Experiments", Proceedings of ICCF-7

Swartz, M, 1998, Improved Electrolytic Reactor PerformanceUsing  
p-Notch System Operation and Gold Anodes, Transactions of the 
American Nuclear Association, Nashville, Tenn 1998 Meeting, 
(ISSN:0003-018X publisher LaGrange, Ill) 78, 84-85.


  less important, but relevant:

Swartz, M, 1994, "A  Method  To  Improve Algorithms Used To 
Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy", 
Transactions of Fusion Technology, 26, 156-159.

Swartz, M,1993, "Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the 
PFC Phase-II Calormetric Curves", Vol. 2, Proceedings: 
"Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", 19-1, op. cit. 

Swartz, M., 1996, "Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air
 Surrounding a Calorimeter", Journal of New Energy, 2, 219-221 (1996)


  Finally, consider these two - and here is why.
 Jed attacks me because these two papers explain WHY he
erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat
with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric 
system without adequate joule controls.

Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 



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


> * Has this device been replicated by your own group (or anyone else)?

   Yes.


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


> * What is the status of the device now - does it still exist and work, or
>has it been modified or dismantled?

   We are seeking third stage funding for production.
It has remained under development.

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


> * Will this device be shown publicly at any upcoming venue?

   We dont usually operate that way, although some members of
JET Energy Technology might consider it for some limited
portion of our research.

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


> * Will full details of this device be disclosed so that others may
>replicate it?

   We have previously disclosed much of our info (see above),
although the slow and methodical rate has been criticized by some.

   Thank you for your comments.  Please send me your snail-mail
address by private email and I'll send you a COLD FUSION TIMES.

   Best wishes.  
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 11:54:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08806;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:40:44 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>,
        John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>,
        John Steck <John_Steck css.mot.com>
Subject: Stop the CAR, Eddie, Re: Farewell & Best Wishes
In-Reply-To: <3652FD6C.98998BF4 css.mot.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981118142947.24650A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZlKCc2.0.W92.SLoKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24737
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	An emotional diatibe:

	Stop the car....

	I treasure Vortex.... for the people.  I have met many, some of 
them in person... their gifts are beyond and value in dollars
and cents.

	This has GOT to stop!

	Why don't we take the core of what has caused strife... the 'he 
said, he said" ... and put it into a HeS HeS [or 'hiss-hiss'] vortex 
list... adn leave Vo ALONE!!!!

	The loss of contributions and communications with John Steck 
would sadden me to no end.... and there are many on the lsit I could say 
the same for!

	After the Hiss Hiss ... on the other Vor... then the contributors 
could write us a few lines saying, for example

	"Party A and Party B agrre to disagree"
	"Party A claims 4 watts on October 12, 1995, referenced to XXX"
	"Party B either
		a] does not agree
		b] did not see contribution
		c] other

	PLEASE!  Put the HS HS in another part.... don't 'fix' an 
unbroken VO!!!!


					JHS

	PS:  If I have a bad diode and do not know why it failed, I will 
remove it from the circuit... and test it when I have time ... I DO NOT 
spend a whole lot of time bitching out the part.... or holding up use of 
the circuit...  nor do I mash donuts or cookies into it .... to see it it 
tastes better....  I fix the circuit!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:07:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25863;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:05:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:05:36 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:57:40 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, John Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Subject: hydrogen oxygen questions
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981118145542.24650D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lkJQA1.0.zJ6.FYoKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24738
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	To all:

	What is the best commercial or experimental efficiency on water 
electrolysis?   What would be considered a significant upgrade or goal?

			J

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:24:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA12404;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118152119.0080b130 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:21:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Erroneous pseudo-"kilowatt" measurements 
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118140902.0068df90 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"J6fiW.0.k13.9ooKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24739
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 02:09 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell has attacked me because
we have published in two papers explain WHY and HOW he
erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat
with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric 
system without adequate joule controls.

  These are the papers, for those interested:

Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 

   
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:28:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02372;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:25:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:25:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118152723.007fe880 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:27:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Request policy decision!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118140902.0068df90 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TecpF1.0.ya.DroKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24740
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



  At 02:09 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>A person with that
>attitude would not find my words insulting.

  The insults by Rothwell are typical, but not important.

The real issues are the deliberate false statements about 
other peoples work, and Jed's aversion to consideration 
of correction of his erroneous levels using uncalibrated
vertical flow calorimetry at low enuf flow rates that
bouyant transport (Bernard instability) becomes important
(refs 1, 2).

  Mitchell Swartz

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

1. Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

2. Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:36:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06251;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:33:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:33:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118153218.0068aeb0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:32:18 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: hydrogen oxygen questions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kw2jA2.0.bX1.TyoKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24741
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Schnurer asks:

	What is the best commercial or experimental efficiency on water
electrolysis?

65%


	What would be considered a significant upgrade or goal?

PG&E hopes to reach 75% by the year 2020.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:37:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06943;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:34:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:34:58 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118153639.0080dd70 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:36:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Request policy decision! - More Rothwell misstatements
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118140902.0068df90 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QeDGG3.0.Ai1.nzoKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24742
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 02:09 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I thought that Swartz's
>statements were somewhat misleading and might confuse the questioner, so I
>thought I should step in and clarify the situation.

  Clarify - no.  Jed has instead substituted
false statements.

  One false statement by Jed was that the levels were not given (they were).
Scott Little's post demonstrates they were quantitatively posted
and received.

  The second false statement by Jed was that there were no publications.
 
    "Mitchell Swartz never published .. anything"
     [Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:12:31 -0500
      Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
    Subject: Another extraordinary claim from Swartz]

  Really? Here are a few of the relevant partial list of publications.
 The first group describe the calorimeter and measurement techniques:

Swartz. M., 1997, "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy 
in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model 
of Isotope Loading into a Material" Fusion Technology. 31, 63-74.

Swartz. M., 1997, "Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using 
Nickel Cathodes". lECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009

SWARTZ, M., 1998, PATTERNS OF FAILURE  IN COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS, 
Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on 
Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, 1998.

Swartz, M, 1997, "Noise Measurement in cold fusion systems, 
Journal of New Energy, 2, 2, 56-61. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Definitions Of Power Amplification Factor", 
J New Energy, 2, 54-59. 

Swartz, M, 1998,  "Optimal Operating Point  Characteristics of 
Nickel Light Water Experiments", Proceedings of ICCF-7

Swartz, M, 1998, Improved Electrolytic Reactor PerformanceUsing  
p-Notch System Operation and Gold Anodes, Transactions of the 
American Nuclear Association, Nashville, Tenn 1998 Meeting, 
(ISSN:0003-018X publisher LaGrange, Ill) 78, 84-85.


  less important, but relevant:

Swartz, M, 1994, "A  Method  To  Improve Algorithms Used To 
Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy", 
Transactions of Fusion Technology, 26, 156-159.

Swartz, M,1993, "Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the 
PFC Phase-II Calormetric Curves", Vol. 2, Proceedings: 
"Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", 19-1, op. cit. 

Swartz, M., 1996, "Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air
 Surrounding a Calorimeter", Journal of New Energy, 2, 219-221 (1996)


   Other relevant publications on Quasi-1-dimensional Isotope 
Loading, Pi-Notch Behavior
Swartz, M., 1992, "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading
 of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300.

Swartz, M., 1994, "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At
An Electrode". Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77

Swartz. M., 1994, "Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations"
 "Cold Fusion Source Book", International Symposium On Cold Fusion And 
Advanced Energy Systems". Ed. Hal Fox. Minsk Belarus

Swartz. M., 1997, "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", Fusion
Technology, 
32. 126-130 (1997)


  Other relevant publications on Catastrophic Desorption
 and Nuclear Selection Theory

Swartz. M., 1994 "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion"
Vol. 4. "Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion" 
sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research

Swartz, M., 1997, "Hydrogen Redistribution By Catastrophic Desorption In 
Select Transition Metals", Journal of New Energy, 1, 4,  26-33

Swartz, M., 1997, "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", Fusion
Technology, 31, 
228-236 (March 1997).

Swartz, M., 1996, "Possible Deuterium Production From Light water 
excess enthalpy experiments using Nickel Cathodes", 
Journal of New Energy, 3, 68-80 (1996)

  Finally, consider these two - and here is why.
 Jed attacks me because these two papers explain WHY he
erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat
with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric 
system without adequate joule controls.

Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 


  Given the above, quantitatively this was yet another 
'kilowatt'-level false statement by our Mr. Rothwell. 

  Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 12:46:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10472;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:41:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:41:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199811182040.OAA00122 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:39:24 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Should hard-hitting critiques be allowed?
Resent-Message-ID: <"UexrS1.0.OZ2.m3pKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24743
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones suggests this rule:
>
>     (1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided
>     that topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.
>
>I believe the majority and the list owner disagree with the "anything goes"
>philosophy. That is what precipitated this mini-crisis.

***{Incorrect. As I have said repeatedly, the SETI thread could have
coexisted peaceably with the other threads in this group, if those who were
not interested in participating in it had simply ignored it. That is an
unarguable fact. Further, this group has been from the beginning a nest of
diverse threads, with no identifiable common link between them, as any
honest participant in this group can attest. The only question, therefore,
is this: what was it about the SETI thread that got everybody so exercised?
Once that question is asked, the answer is obvious: it was sufficiently
interesting that virtually everybody in this group who was used to speaking
with authority got sucked into it, and one-by-one they discovered that
their conventional opinions could not be easily defended. Simply put: those
who are afraid of being labeled "kooks" if they take the question of alien
visitations seriously discovered that, in terms of substance, their
arguments were weak. At that point, unable to deal with the issue at a
substantive level and unwilling to admit that fact, one of them mounted a
non-substantive attack--to wit: he argued that the thread was "off topic."
Result: every other person whose feathers had been singed leaped to the
attack on the same ground, feeling that there was security in numbers and
that the foe would obligingly tuck his tail between his legs and run. But
he didn't. Result: the matter became personal, and they began demanding
that the individual in question--I can't quite recall his name--be banished
from the group. That, in a nut shell, is what happened. Bottom line: this
is personal. A certain person who shall remain nameless has proven to be a
stronger reality check than some of you can comfortably deal with. Thus you
want to either ban him from the group, or set up a labyrinth of rules to
hide behind, so that when he uses one of his unconventional concepts
against you in an argument and you discover that you cannot deal with it,
you can begin to squeal that he is off topic and count on your surrogate
daddy, Bill Beaty, to smite him down and tuck you into bed at night.
--Mitchell Jones}***

      Actually, you have
>done us a favor, Mitch, by bringing this crisis to a head. You force reforms
>upon us which are long overdue.

***{Indeed they are, but there isn't much wrong, structurally, with this
group. What you guys need to recognize is that nobody ever solved a problem
by denying that it existed. Thus if you continue to insist that this little
crusade is not a personal vendetta, you absolutely guarantee that the
changes you make will degrade the quality of the group. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>I personally disagree with the "polite" idea. I have been to many physics
>conferences, and the best  discussions have not always been polite.
>Professional, yes, but often hard hitting.

***{You just don't understand what I mean by "polite," that's all. "Polite"
means "exhibiting good manners." "Good manners" means "social behavior that
is appropriate to an agreed to purpose." By this standard, for example,
propositioning women is polite--if you are in a whorehouse. (If not, expect
a slap in the face!) Similarly, punching a man in the face is good
manners--if you are in a boxing ring. (If not, expect to be arrested.)

What, then, is the agreed to purpose of a discussion group? Well, a
discussion group is a forum where people come together to engage in
reasoned discourse, and reasoned discourse is an exploration of the
evidence and logic relevant to some issue, with the aim of finding the
truth. In a discussion group, therefore, anything that facilitates reasoned
discourse is polite, and anything that impedes it is impolite. By this
standard, for example, such behaviors as refusal to support one's
assertions, or the citing of educational credentials in lieu of arguments,
or lying, or the making of demeaning claims or insinuations about an
opponent's mental state, or the making of insulting, derisive, or mocking
comments, is impolite. Thus the standard to be applied to decide whether a
behavior is acceptable in a discussion group is simply this: does the
behavior impede the process of reasoned discourse? If it does, then it is
prohibited; if not, then it is acceptable and, therefore, "polite."
--Mitchell Jones}***

   Here is something for the readers
>of this forum to think about here and now, before we make any changes or
>establish any new rules. The other day I posted a message with paragraphs
>including:
>
>     The statement is excessively vague but it seems to imply that the energy
>     driving the thermoelectric devices was primarily cold fusion heat, and
>     not Joule heating from electrolysis. It may even mean the reactions were
>     self-sustaining (either heat after death or regenerative). After all,
>     what would be the point of describing a cell in which ten watts of Joule
>     heating plus a half watt of cold fusion heat together drive a
>     thermoelectric device? That would be a trivial accomplishment. . . .
>
>     Unless this claim is clarified, quantified, and specific details are
>     provided, I am afraid it does not mean much. Unfortunately, in the past
>     when Scott Little and others have asked Swartz to clarify, he has always
>     refused. He will not even tell us how many watts his devices produce,
>     which is the bare minium information anyone needs to sort out a claim.
>     Low power claims (below a half-watt) are dubious except when reported by
>     experts like Miles, and a low power claim from an unconventional, unique
>     calorimeter like Swartz's should be automatically rejected out of hand,
>     by my stick-in-the-mud conventionalist standards. . . .
>
>     In any case, if this claim is anything like it appears to be, it is
>     exiting and revolutionary, and it deserves proof. It could be an
>     important scientific breakthrough, and it might interest serious
>     investors. Swartz denies it, but there are, in fact, many wealthy
>     individuals and corporations anxious to invest in cold fusion. . . .
>     However, as things stand there is no proof, and no sensible person would
>     believe this claim. The ironclad standards of science must first be met:
>     we must have verification and replication . . .
>
>Would this be acceptable on Channel 1? Or does it go over the line? I'll move
>it to Channel 2 if the readers demand, but more likely I will not bother to
>write it in the first place, because it took some effort to compose this
>message and frame it carefully, and I will not make that kind of effort for a
>restricted readership, or to see it mix it in with a lot of lighthearted gab
>and screwy conspiracy theories. (Of course I will be happy to talk about
>catching ground hogs in hats on Channel 2.)

***{Considered in isolation and out of context, your comments are a very
clear and strong statement of opinion, and one that is guaranteed to
provoke a response. It does not merely facilitate discussion: it virtually
guarantees it. In terms of form, I see nothing wrong with it whatever. I
would note, however, that Mitchell Swartz responded to these remarks by
accusing you of lying. The implication would seem to be that there is some
statement in the above which you made despite knowing that it was false. If
that is true, then the above statement is, in fact, impolite, because lying
most assuredly does impede rational discourse. Bottom line: it is
impossible for an outsider to classify the above paragraphs as either
polite or impolite until the issue raised by Mitchell Swartz has been
settled.

Moreover, this is an issue that cuts both ways. Calling someone a liar
impedes rational discourse and is impolite--unless the person who hurls the
charge can prove it. And the burden of proof lies on the person making the
charge. Thus Mitchell Swartz is now obligated to prove his charge. If he
can't do it, then he is by that fact alone proven to be in violation of the
standard of politeness. Note that in this respect the hurling of demeaning
accusations differs from other types of substantive claims, in that they
carry with them this burden of proof. If I post a claim, for example, that
my kitchen blender is over unity, I am obligated to attempt to support my
claim if challenged, but if I try to support it and fail, that does not
mean I was impolite to make the claim. On the other hand, if I claim that
someone in the group is a liar, that charge carries an attendant burden of
proof which, if not fulfilled, merits some sort of sanctions. Of course, if
Mitchell Swartz tries to prove his accusation and fails, we cannot go after
him on these grounds, because that would be an ex post facto application of
the rule and, as such, would be unfair. We cannot apply rules
retroactively. I do believe, however, that such a rule should be explicitly
stated and, if violated *after* being stated, should be strictly enforced.

How would it be enforced? Well, the simple way would be for the list
manager to take it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner. But a
better way, in my view, would be to have procedures set up for a trial. For
example, the person accused--of lying, say--would complain to the list
manager. The list manager would notify the group that a trial would be
held, and would ask those who were willing to sit on a 12 man jury to
submit their names. If 50 people volunteered, then the list manager would
allow the plaintiff and the defendant to each delete 19 names. If, due to
overlap, 20 names remained, the plaintiff and defendant would each be
allowed to delete an additional 4 names. Etc. The process of deletions
would continue until you had either 12 or 13 names. If 13, then the
defendant would be allowed to delete one more. Next, the defendant--the
person charged with hurling the insult--would be required to justify doing
so--e.g., to prove that the plaintiff did, in fact, lie--in a thread before
the entire group, with participation permitted by anyone in the group, just
as with any other thread. Such a thread would end in one of three ways: (1)
If, at any point, the 12 members of the jury agreed unanimously that the
plaintiff could not demonstrate his charge, then he would be banished from
the group. (2) If, at any point, the 12 members of the jury agreed
unanimously that the plaintiff had demonstrated his charge, then the
defendant would be banished from the group--e.g., for lying. (3) If, at any
point, the jury stated that it was deadlocked, the trial would be over and
no action would be taken against anyone. Bottom line: hurling personal
insults is serious business, and should not be undertaken lightly. However,
behavior that justifies the hurling of such charges is also a serious
matter, and it should not be taken lightly either.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>My statements regarding Swartz are not polite by any standard

***{They are polite by mine, assuming that your remarks contain no outright
lies. --MJ}***

, but I think
>they should be allowed in a serious, scientific debate.

***{They should, unless they contain lies. --MJ}***

I would not hesitate
>to say this during a formal session of an ICCF conference, for example. I
>think it is unreasonable and in a sense disruptive  when people like Swartz
>and Newman come flying in here and make these grandiose, unsupported and
>unreplicated claims which they refuse to quantify, defend or explain.

***{Jed, since I have sent you a *lot* of material detailing experiments
which quantify, defend, and explain Newman's motor, I find myself strongly
tempted to call you a liar myself at this point. At the very least, you are
speaking so loosely here as to be in reckless disregard of the truth.
Frankly, I am astonished by your behavior. I have corresponded with you off
and on for years, and had a high opinion of you until fairly recently, but
now you seem hell bent on taking the low road at every turn. --Mitchell
Jones}***

However, I cannot
>imagine a person at an ICCF giving a lecture in which he claims he has
>succeeded in thermoelectric conversion, yet he refuses to describe the power
>level or any other salient details. That would be unthinkable! I am not
>suggesting we should ban that sort of guff, but I do think that an unkind,
>impolite, hard hitting response is appropriate. (His response was a little
>emotional I thought, and perhaps unkind, but I have a thick skin and it did
>not bother me in the least.)

***{Whether it bothers you when you are called a liar is not the point. If
you are a liar, then your presence in the group impedes rational discourse;
and if you are not a liar, then rational discourse is impeded by the
presence in the group of the person who falsely asserted that you were a
liar. Some sort of sanction needs to exist to discourage either type of
misbehavior. --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Real science gets nasty at times. That is my point. You cannot paper over
>fundamental disagreements about irresponsible claims based on hot air.

***{I repeat: any behavior that impedes rational discourse ought to be
discouraged in a discussion group. In that context, such behavior is
impolite. In cases where there is a dispute about the source of the
misbehavior, a trial is indicated. A moderator who takes it upon himself to
act as judge, jury, and executioner is, himself, impeding rational
discourse, because participants in a discussion group need to feel that
they are safeguarded not merely from those who hurl unjustified insults,
but also against people whose behavior justifies the hurling of insults.
This means some sort of formal procedure needs to be available to permit
objective answers to such questions. *It is not appropriate to merely make
the blanket assumption that those who hurl insults are in the wrong*. If
you do that, your group will be taken over by people whose behavior
justifies the hurling of insults--i.e., by liars, assholes, evaders,
pretentious mediocrities, and assorted lowlife scumbags. This will happen
because such people are protected by the moderator's policy of assuming
that those who hurl insults are automatically in the wrong. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>Let us think about this issue carefully before writing a new charter. I think
>it would a mistake to try rule out or marginalize conflict. The field of cold
>fusion is deep trouble -- it is nearly moribund -- partly because there has
>not been enough rigor, challenge, follow up, and demand for proof. People get
>away with making unsupported statements. Sensible skeptics see this and
>conclude that all claims must be equally vapid.
>
>Jones proposes other rules, which I do not think anyone in the audience will
>second:
>
>     (2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
>     others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
>     serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that
>     others muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.
>
>Absolutely not. No coherent debate can evolve when anyone is free to say
>anything about any subject! It reminds me of a 1960s "happening" with stoned
>audience participation.

***{The above statement is an instance of blatant context dropping. The
three rules are intended to stand together, not alone. They read as
follows:

(1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided that
topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.

(2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that others
muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.

(3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over or
delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which are
not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting behavior
in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out of order.

Considered together, these rules would bring about an atmosphere in which
we could all feel protected not merely against interaction with persons who
are prone to hurl unjustified insults, but also against interaction with
persons whose behavior justifies the hurling of insults. Discussions would
be reasoned, scientific, and polite, and the truth would out. That
atmosphere would be essentially the same as the one that has prevailed here
in the past, but with a few additional safeguards. On the other hand, the
various proposals for changes that are being put forward by Jed Rothwell
and others would simply create a legalistic facade of arbitrary topical
boundaries and assorted silly rules for evaders to hide behind, thereby
enabling them to escape from the truth. If they are enacted, then the group
will be taken over and dominated by liars, assholes, evaders, pretentious
mediocrities, and assorted lowlife scumbags. I, for one, am against their
enactment.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>     (3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over
>     or delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which
>     are not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting
>     behavior in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out
>     of order.
>
>Again, this is what the rest of us and the list owner are voting against. We
>have diametrically opposite points of view. Perhaps you should start your own
>discussion group based on your standards.

***{That thought occured to me several days ago. I may do just that.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Jed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 13:05:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22948;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:03:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:03:56 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118150301.00eefe4c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:03:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: A consensus emerges?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118114425.0068d984 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"87AeI1.0.Qc5.xOpKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24744
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:44 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>This is somewhat arbitrary. Scott Little is the one who wants the Vortcore
>forum for low-traffic technical reports only, so perhaps he should tell us
>where he thinks the comment like Heffner's should go. He should define a few
>short ground rules or Instructions to Authors as a publisher would say. I
have
>no opinion.

Vortcor is not just for reports. 

Horace's comment on airflow is perfectly suited for Vortcor.  He was making
a direct comment about possible errors in experimental results.  In
general, I would expect each posting of experimental results on vortcor to
be followed by several days of relatively high-traffic, sometimes-lengthy
postings forming a detailed discussion of the results.  That's what vortcor
is for.  If members are sufficiently stimulated by the results and the
discussion, there might follow a period of detailed Q&A of the original
experimentalist to extract the necessary information for replication.  THEN
THINGS SHOULD DIE DOWN TO NOTHING for a good while until the first
replication results are in...or until somebody posts results of a different
experiment.

In other words, I want to get rid of the background chatter....not the good
stuff.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 13:09:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24656;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:07:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:07:37 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118150642.0078f3a4 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:06:42 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Experiments list
In-Reply-To: <92197d59.3652ffa5 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mlgc2.0.816.OSpKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24745
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:11 11/18/98 EST, Briggs wrote:

>I almost completely agree with your proposal with one minor change.  
>Could we include a few of us highly qualified, busy engineers along with you
>scientists?

Bob, I'm going to let you in on a well-kept secret....all engineers ARE
scientists.

You are most welcome on vortcor.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 13:34:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24584;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:20:37 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Re: hydrogen oxygen questions
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118153218.0068aeb0 pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981118161914.2451B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bw61D1.0.106.-opKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24746
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Jed and Vo.,

	How is this done?   Can we get information?  What are the units 
of x in VS x out ???  Temperatures, electrodes and so on,  please.

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> John Schnurer asks:
> 
> 	What is the best commercial or experimental efficiency on water
> electrolysis?
> 
> 65%
> 
> 
> 	What would be considered a significant upgrade or goal?
> 
> PG&E hopes to reach 75% by the year 2020.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 13:49:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08364;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:43:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:43:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118164350.0080a240 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:43:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Vertical flow miracle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Iuc_H1.0.W22.R-pKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24747
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  At 03:52 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Here is a chance to test the B list. Mitch Swartz writes:
>
>	The real issues are the deliberate false statements about other
>	peoples work, and Jed's aversion to consideration  of correction
>	of his erroneous levels using uncalibrated vertical flow calorimetry
>	at low enuf flow rates that bouyant transport (Bernard instability)
>	becomes important
>
>This is definitely a B-list topic.

  Absolute WRONG!!

  This is RIGHT on topic.  Scientific error making a
~500-1500 milliwatt signal appear to be a "kilowatt" is the
discussion of the an important experimental pattern of failure
which generates large false positives.


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

> Two questions, Mitch:
>1. You say the flow rate was too low. It was a liter per minute. How fast
>should it have been? (I have asked this a dozen times and you never answer,
>but I thought for sport it would be fun to ask again.)
>
>2. The temperature Delta T was determined by measuring the temperture in
>the reservoir, and dumping 250 ml of water from the outlet into a cup. The
>water was stirred, and measured with a thermistor, a thermocopule and a
>thermometer. It was 17 degrees C hotter than the reservoir. Now, I am not
>asking about how your theory can explain this . . . I wouldn't dare.


  This has all been answered before, AND in the papers, and I will
not repeat it AGAIN. 
   Unfortunately for Jed, given his continuous BS,
we will begin a manuscript to criticize
his experiment using numbers he reported THEN in a timely fashion.
 This will then be posted for criticism here prior to submission
for possible publication.


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

>>My question is: Do you call this a vertical flow, or a horizontal flow?
>Would it matter where on the table I placed the cups? I mean, if I held the
>cup above the cell, would that change the temperature or the volume of
>water? Also, why do you call it "vertical flow calorimetry" when in fact
>the water in the cup was not flowing anywhere.
>- Jed - Waiting with baited breath!


   The time for spoon-feeding Jed Rothwell -- who failed to read the papers
to the point of attempting to understand them (lied to the group
claiming there were NO publications **) -- is over.  

[ **   Twenty (20) papers were listed
which demonstrate gross quantitative misleading by 
Jed Rothwell.  QED.]


  With respect to the above trolling by Jed Rothwell,
each time answers have been posted Jed disappears, and then
tardively asks a variant of the same unerudite nonsense.

  Given the above (** vide supra), there should be an
apology to Bozo-the-Clown and the other  students in Clown school 
for linking them to Jed.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:07:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01611;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b278f4aef107 [208.228.222.184]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:08:18 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"IQNw8.0.3P.IIqKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24748
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed,

I am now confused.  I don't understand why you respond regarding the
testing proceedures in Bow.  Are the large positive reults in *both* GA and
NH, or just in GA?

At 1:08 PM 11/18/98, Ed Wall wrote:
[snip discussion of Bow, NH test proceedure]

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:09:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18806;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:08:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:08:01 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:00:02 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
cc: free E <freenrg-l eskimo.com>
Subject: electrostatic
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981118165240.3575C-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"H5Zp-1.0.eb4.-KqKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24749
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear fre and Vo.,

	I have developed a simple electric current method.  It uses a 
very high impedance, over 1 tera ohm front end... with a bias current in 
the 50 fA range.  It can be configured to;

	a] linear out
	b] square out .. to compensate for square field fall off for non 
contact field measure
	c] modified log compression ~ 20 plus or minus over 100,000:1
	d] more complex and expensive, variable K square through 5th root

	Can be single ended, gradiometric or differential ... with [a] 
through [d] applied to output.   Battery, about 7 mA drain from 9 volt.

	Any interest?  Off line, please.

	Other instrumentation as well.

			JHS 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:21:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25181;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:19:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:19:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118171521.006955d8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:15:21 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: hydrogen oxygen questions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_xZrK1.0.496.XVqKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24750
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer asks:

	Dear Jed and Vo.,

	How is this done?   Can we get information?  What are the units 
	of x in VS x out ???  Temperatures, electrodes and so on,  please.

Sorry Vo, I don't know. All I have is a chart and some footnotes in the
NREL publication, "Hydrogen Program Plan, FY 1994 - FY 1997," p. C3 - C5.

I do not suppose it would matter what units you use; the ratios remain the
same.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:21:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25219;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:19:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:19:19 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118172112.007cd100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:21:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Mia culpa: meant did not publish *here*
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118164618.006923e8 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eg66S1.0.a96.ZVqKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24751
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 04:46 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Anyway, based on the messages Swartz posted here, I think the vertical flow
>hypothesis must be wrong, so I have no confidence in his judgement about
>other aspects of calorimetry.

  
  Those who read, and model their systems, or need experimental
accuracy, and are interested in controls, can read those papers,
and decide themselves.       ;-)

 ===================================================
 
> I understand something about the
>multi-envelope calorimeter from his lecture at ICCF7. I have never used
>this kind of calorimeter, or even seen one, so it is difficult for me to
>judge, but the instrument seems excessively complex, slow, and
>unconventional.


   Incorrect.

   Time constants as low as 20 minutes on the inner ring
are NOT slow.   Redundant measurement, including at 10 Hertz,
along with measurement of noise power, including in situ 
chemical and joule controls, with full integration of long
term input and output powers is not just conventional --
it is fundamental.
    
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:26:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA05219;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b278f9c322b1 [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:26:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Vertical flow miracle
Resent-Message-ID: <"G7eUG3.0.GH1.3aqKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24752
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:43 PM 11/18/98, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
[snip]
>  Given the above (** vide supra), there should be an
>apology to Bozo-the-Clown and the other  students in Clown school
>for linking them to Jed.


Apology accepted by this student.   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:29:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29395;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:27:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:27:52 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118172953.00808950 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:29:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jeds vertical flow "miracle"-kilowatt
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118170710.00694b34 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ug0iS2.0.DB7.ddqKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24753
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 05:07 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Rothwell takes time from
his ad hominems and false statements to troll:

> ROTHWELL: In a moment of playfullness, I asked
>"You say the flow rate was too low. It was a liter per minute. How fast
>should it have been?" Mitchell Swartz responded:
>
>	This has all been answered before, AND in the papers, and I will not
>	repeat it AGAIN. 
>
>No, unfortunately, it has never been answered. Not here anyway. 

  Yes it has. 
  More false statements Jed.   Typical modus operandi.
  
 =================================================

> ROTHWELL: There is no point in referring me to those papers.

  
  You might take a reading course.  And get a library card.  ;-)
  
  For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW he
erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat
with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric 
system without adequate joule controls.

 Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 

   
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 14:34:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30778;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:30:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:30:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118173223.00815e30 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:32:23 -0500
To: vortexb-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Mia culpa: meant did not publish *here*
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b278f8a89e31 [12.64.4.117]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118164618.006923e8 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"91wQU3.0.ZW7.LgqKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24754
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 12:23 PM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>I'm sure if you weren't such a tardive and unerudite variant yourself,
>you'd be able to make much more sense of it.

  We ALL are on the first pass.  

  It takes about seven (+/-?) attempts to "grok" something, IMO.  ;-)

   Mitchell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 15:01:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09734;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:57:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:57:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118175858.007c5100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:58:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortexB-L@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Mia culpa: meant did not publish *here*
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118164618.006923e8 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_3Xmz1.0.xN2.03rKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24755
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 04:46 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell falsely states:


>This message is supposed to come via Vortex Gab.
>>Mitch Swartz writes:
>>  The second false statement by Jed was that there were no publications.
> 
>    "Mitchell Swartz never published .. anything"
>
>I meant publish here, or on an Internet web page. 


  Oooops.  Jed is caught AGAIN.  

  WHAT UTTER BS.
  One of the papers (long excerpt) is an
Internet web page at URL 
http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

   Other data was put up at 
Internet web page at URL 
http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html


   And furthermore, Jed Rothwell knew that TOO. 
It has been there for years and discussed, 
INCLUDING in the vortex archives.  

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


>I should have made that clearer. 


  Backpedalling-R-US.   Define "that".  ;-)


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


>People demand access to your work, and
>they deserve it. 

  Get a library card.  Learn to read.
  Ask for local help.  Get a support group.

  But, Jed Rothwell  .... it is SERIOUSLY suggested you
   TRY to stop misstating the truth.  


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


>Anyway, based on the messages Swartz posted here, I think the vertical flow
>hypothesis must be wrong, so I have no confidence in his judgement about
>other aspects of calorimetry. 


   Of course not.  ;-) X
         "kilowatts" good.   controls, bad, right Jed?


   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 15:13:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15697;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:11:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:11:39 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118181336.007c8100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:13:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortexb-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b278fbd75db7 [12.64.4.163]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118143003.00808100 world.std.com>
 <l03130303b278c193ad18 [12.64.4.117]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8-JPz1.0._q3.gGrKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24756
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



   At 12:59 PM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>Second, thanks for clarifying some questions I had in your other post with
>all the references. I may not have access to many of those. Our university
>here would rather fund an oh-and-10e9 loser football "team" than to ensure
>that the main library is subscribed to a full range of technical journals.
>
   
  Rick:

 ;-(  

    Hope the team and the librarians do better.

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

>There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding measurement
>errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to mean that
>small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get entrained into
>output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting that the overall
>mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it really isn't. Is that
>basically right? Obviously this might be a problem in certain setups, and
>probably not in others, specifically those which involved higher flow rates
>and mixing.


   That is correct, which is why one should not try to make
flow calorimeters go vertical.  If they go horizontal it is NOT a problem.
At very high flow rates exceeding the vertical bouyant flow 
(Bernard instability) rates it is less a problem.

  Answers to rest of the good questions are in the papers. I am sorry
I dont have the time now to repeat it.

   Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 15:19:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16875;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b279034c604f [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:20:38 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
Resent-Message-ID: <"5W26A.0.b74.pLrKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24757
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dragging vortexB invective into vortex should be, by common sense, a
flagrant violation of the rules!  This goes double if text with name
calling or other out of bounds material is quoted, or if the material is
cross posted or CC'd.  This is an interestng case where the *author* of
invective is not the offending party, but rather the person posting the
quote.

I bring this up because Jed started a debate with Mitchell on vortexb, but
Mitchel dragged it back onto vortex (whether intentionally or not.)  With
multiple lists we will have to be careful about watching the response
addressees and following the vortex anti-spam rule.

The anti-spam rule is far more important to vortcor.  Like with vortex, any
correspondence to vortcor should have no multiple addressees and should
have no CC's.  This avoids accidental cross posting in the reponses.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 15:33:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20200;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530506b27908057c65 [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:28:43 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
Resent-Message-ID: <"sO_S23.0.Xx4.NYrKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24758
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I neglected to mention that those of us who are subscribed to both vortex
and vortexB are getting two copies of Mitchell Swartz' posts.

The anti-spam rule should clearly apply to vortexB as well.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 16:43:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14044;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:22:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:22:15 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b2791365e650 [12.64.4.163]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530506b27908057c65 [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:18:46 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
Resent-Message-ID: <"LZGlg3.0.MR3.rIsKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24759
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace

>I neglected to mention that those of us who are subscribed to both vortex
>and vortexB are getting two copies of Mitchell Swartz' posts.
>
>The anti-spam rule should clearly apply to vortexB as well.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

Mitchell is cc'ing to a second list, and he shouldn't do that. Old rule.

Ok, so...

1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics


... is that about right?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:16:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01152;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36536FEB.7BE6 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:10:03 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GII6w2.0.oH.f2tKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24760
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: CF debate, band state theory
  Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:35 -0400 (EDT)
  From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

     To: Scott Chubb
          
     Dr. Chubb,
     
     I have been paying some attention to the discussion between you and 
     Dick Blue, with participation by Ed Storms, and I have a couple of 
     questions for you if you don't mind.
     
     It seems to me that the picture of CF you paint is quite different 
     from that presented by Ed Storms.  In particular, Ed uses the     
concept of 'special states of matter' that are present at very low     
levels in relation to the bulk, and thus are very hard to detect.      
He also supports the idea that these 'clusters' (my term) occur        
primarily on the surface.  
     
     I am no quantum mechanicist, but I think I have a general 
     understanding of what is you are proposing.  
     (Please correct me if I am wrong!)  It seems to me that your 
     theory uses a bulk solid state to explain CF.  You are using 
     bands and band theory and talking about the periodic
potentials         needed to allow coherent effects to become
important.  
     
     I assume that the computational techniques you employ 
     assume infinite 3D periodicity.  If that is true I would
     expect that there would be severe modifications to your
     'view' when a finite-sized 'cluster' of the 'special state 
     of matter' was used as the computational basis in 
     your approach.
     
     In 'normal' quantum chemistry, I believe the change observed is the 
     eventual decomposition of bands into localized molecular
orbitals,      and I also seem to recall the transition between the 
     two regimes is still not made easily.  
     
     Is this correct?  What happens to your theory as you
     shrink the size of the lattice from infinity down to 
     microscopic sizes, and then further to the dimensionality
     of a few 10's of atoms diameter?  
     Further, what effect would restricting your periodicity by
     imposing a surface (i.e., truncating periodicity in 1
direction)      have?
     
     Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:23:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA02783;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:22:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:22:14 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365373D8.7061F7D8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:26:49 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Vortex lists
References: <005001be1226$354dc920$88b4bfa8 default> <36518E1D.E6F@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bfCZ42.0.Bh.3BtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24762
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

November 18, 1998

Vortxxxs,

My cup runneth over! Its getting downright sloppy.

-ak-


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:25:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA02592;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:21:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:21:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118202351.00803c30 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:23:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: My science posts are appropriate for vortex
In-Reply-To: <v01530504b279034c604f [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Le36z.0.He.iAtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24761
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


At 02:20 PM 11/18/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>I bring this up because Jed started a debate with Mitchell on vortexb, but
>Mitchel dragged it back onto vortex (whether intentionally or not.)  With
>multiple lists we will have to be careful about watching the response
>addressees and following the vortex anti-spam rule.

  Do what you want.  I am posting to vortex-l because this
material rebuts Jed's false statements made there, and because
it is cf engineering.

   If YOU want to joke around with Jed, please do so on vortex-B where
HE belongs with his untruthful false statements.


  Science about o/u/cf/vorticies/zpe belong on vortex.

  Hope that helps.
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:34:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA06643;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:31:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:31:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130511b27934effe26 [38.14.54.78]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:41:19 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Experimental Results Posted re Newman Energy Machine
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z-i-41.0.Zd1.AKtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24763
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stefan Hartman in Germany has just posted some interesting results
following his experiments with the Newman Energy Machine.

These results can be found at:

http://www.overunity.com/newman2/

Best regards,

Evan Soule'
NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
EvanSoule josephnewman.com
www.josephnewman.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:40:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA09454;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:38:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:38:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118204013.0080fbc0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:40:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Lists within Lists within Lists (Shades of the Choam)
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b2791365e650 [12.64.4.163]>
References: <v01530506b27908057c65 [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3XOMh1.0.XJ2.iQtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24764
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 02:18 PM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>
>1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
>2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
>3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics
>
>
>... is that about right?
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI



   Getting too confusing for me.

   1) Science and engineering belong on vortex-l.

   2) Is there really a vortcor, or is it a vapor-channel?

   3) With vort-xxx from Frank, how about vortex-JBS devoted for 
Jed's proven-false statements and invective about other people's
work (including his ad hominems about the recently deceased or 
otherwise departed).


   Mitchell Swartz


     "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 17:59:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA09483;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118204548.0068e6b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:45:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24765
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

     There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding
     measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to
     mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get
     entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting
     that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it
     really isn't.

And Mitch Swartz responded:

     That is correct, which is why one should not try to make flow
     calorimeters go vertical.

RIGHT. Okay. Can we please establish something here? I know that Swartz will
never acknowledge this, but I would like very much to get this message through
to Rick Monteverde:

This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM,
because I took 250 ml of the water out of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and
measured it externally with a thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.
Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
I compared the temperature of the outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid
in the reservoir.

I stated this quite clearly in my first report and dozens of times
thereafter. I repeat: THE PROBES IN THE PLUMBING WERE NOT USED AND HAVE NO
ROLE IN THIS DISCUSSION!!!

Monteverde goes on:

     One way to determine which systems would be subject to these effects and
     to what degree would be to do an extensive analysis by numerical and
     practical methods over a range of configurations generally from low to
     high flow rates. Time consuming and costly. But what about joule heating
     as a method of calibration on a single specific setup?

What about my method? I think it is foolproof. Swartz has never once commented
on it all these years, despite countless repetitions. He has never or given us
any reason to doubt that it is foolproof. He will only talk about the
thermocouple probes in the tube, which have nothing whatever to do with my
claims. (Except insofar as they agreed with the external readings.)

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 18:14:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24237;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:12:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:12:19 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981118211903.00bb6490 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:19:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex lists
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aZIIN3.0.Yw5.1wtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24766
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:26 PM 11/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>November 18, 1998
>
>Vortxxxs,
>
>My cup runneth over! Its getting downright sloppy.
>
>-ak-
>

With >100 messages in my mailbox, I agree.

By the way, most of those messages are coming from two people,
can you guess who????

Gentleman, for lack of a better phrase, this sucks.

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 18:15:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24617;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:13:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:13:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118211441.0080a820 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:14:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118204548.0068e6b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Iv9kM2.0.R06.iwtKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24767
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 08:45 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Rick Monteverde wrote:
>     There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding
>     measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to
>     mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get
>     entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting
>     that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it
>     really isn't.
>
>And Mitch Swartz responded:
>     That is correct, which is why one should not try to make flow
>     calorimeters go vertical.
>
>RIGHT. Okay. Can we please establish something here? I know that Swartz will
>never acknowledge this, but I would like very much to get this message
through
>to Rick Monteverde:
>
>This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM,
>because I took 250 ml of the water out of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and
>measured it externally with a thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.

  
  Is Jed changing experiments?

  Out of the electrolytic cell?
  
  From only one point in the cell, or was it from a single
point in a stream running through the cell?  
If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?

  Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the electrolytic cell?

  What was the impact upon the level in the cell?
   or on the circulation rate?

  What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic
portion of the cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?



>I stated this quite clearly in my first report and dozens of times
>thereafter. I repeat: THE PROBES IN THE PLUMBING WERE NOT USED AND HAVE NO
>ROLE IN THIS DISCUSSION!!!

   We will return to the original values, and method after the above
is ascertained.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 18:54:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08788;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:52:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:52:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:52:40 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: what IS vortex-L?
In-Reply-To: <199811170116.TAA13671 mail11.jump.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981118141106.9836B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"2Kfbz3.0.392.zVuKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24768
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{What's the matter, Bill, are you tired of intervening to adjudicate
> kindergarten squabbles? :-) If so, I sympathize. If, as I suspect, the
> above comment indicates that you are considering changing the charter, then
> I must say that I think that is an excellent idea! While it is clear, both
> from your words and from a reading of the present charter, that there are
> no formal limitations on subject matter in this group, it is also clear (a)
> that the present charter is too wordy, and (b) that something needs to be
> added to prevent recurring tempests such as the one just concluded. To that
> end, I would suggest that the following comments be added:
> 
> (1) There are no limitations on subject matter in this group, provided that
> topics are addressed in a reasoned, scientific, and polite manner.

Actually, the lack of topic limits was an experiment, and it relied upon
the initial existence of a small group of like-minded people.  Up until
recent months, the range of topics was determined by long standing
agreement, and set by the common interests of the vortex-L community as a
whole.  I never intended Vortex-L to have wide-open topic limits like an
unmoderated usenet newsgroup.  It's just that there was some initial early
exploration which ended up determining an "unwritten" set of topics.  It
was my fault that I never took steps to install the resulting limits in
the charter. 

First, what is vortex NOT?  If vortex-L wandered to fulltime discussion of
certain subjects, which subjects would cause ME to leave the group? 
Here's a list: 

Vortex-L is:
 not a crop circles discussion group
 not an anti-relativity discussion group
 not a new-age speculative discussion group
 not a paranormal discussion group
 not a cryptozoo (sasquatch etc.) discussion group
 not a UFO abductions discussion group
 not a fortean phenomena discussion group
 not a face-on-mars or lunar-bases discussion group
 not a channeled technology discussion group
 not a government coverups discussion group
 not an alien conspiracy discussion group
 not an alternative-theories discussion group
 not a global catastrophy discussion group
 not a mind control discussion group
 not an alternative healing discussion group

All of the above groups already exist elsewhere, either on newsgroups or
as list servers.  Jerry Decker's KEELYNET is a good general-coverage
example.  I have no wish to expend effort to duplicate pre-existing
discussions.

Well then, what *IS* Vortex-L supposed to be?  

Vortex-L is intended to promote experimental investigation into the ways
that the physical world REALLY operates, with emphasis on replication of
anomalies; of any phenomena which is inexplicable by current
physics.  You might say that it's the online conference for Infinite
Energy magazine.  It's the Committee for Scientific Investigation of
Claims
of Impossible Physics.  It's a place where mainstream research people can
go to discuss "taboo" experimental findings which might damage their
careers if discussed with collegues.  In part, Vortex-L is the
"professionals" version of FREENRG-L.  The intended audience is
scientists, engineers, and advanced amateurs.  Vortex users invariably
have a lab full of equipment at home (or have permission to "play" at
their workplace labs after hours.) The usual topics here include the
designing, performing, and analyzing of experiments which involve:

  - CF/ZPE (CETI beads, sonoluminescence)
  - Low-energy transmutation (e.g Champion)
  - FE/ZPE Device replication attempts (Griggs, Potapov, Watson)
  - Antigravity/electrogravity/inertia-violation (Podkletnov)
  - Anomalous electrodynamics (Graneau, Marinov)
    misc stuff: biotransmutation, FTL signal propagation, BL plasmas

> (2) Those who post to this group assume the obligation to coexist with
> others who may not share their opinions or interests. This means that
> serious questions and arguments are on topic here, but demands that others
> muzzle themselves or leave the group are out of order.

I see nothing wrong with a requirement that we stick to the group's
central topics, and keep the off-topic discussions within sensible limits. 
The topics here unfortunately were set by longstanding concensus, and not
written down specifically.  However, I do recall something about COME AND
HELP US TEST ANOMALOUS CLAIMS, RATHER THAN RIDICULING THEM AWAY.  The key
word here being "test", as in experimental replication, not just talk. 

One intended goal of the group is to draw in mainstream researchers and
get them involved in the investigation of reported anomalies.  As a
result, there is reason to avoid topics which would cause an openminded
mainstream scientist to recoil in disgust.  We want out-of-the-box
thinking, but not obvious brain damage.  We want to tempt the skeptics to
get their feet wet in the weirdness, but not frighten them away by showing
them the deep end of the pool.  This is a tough call, since "far-fringe
crackpotism" is very much in the eye of the beholder.  In general, if a
discussion topic starts drawing numerous complaints, it means that it has
crossed the fuzzy line that separates this community's perception of
heretical physics concepts from the self-deluded crackpot concepts. 


> (3) Each user of this group assumes the obligation to either skip over or
> delete, either manually or by means of automated filters, posts which are
> not of interest to them. Demands that others alter their posting behavior
> in ways that make such individual actions unnecessary are out of order.

Such is the normal behavior here.  But extremely off-topic threads do
waste time and clog our inboxes.  If the regular subscribers must delete
90% of the vortex messages, then things must change.  Also, off-topic
discussions will eventually drive away the people who have no interest in
them, and will eventually attract people whose interests are limited to
the off-topic discussions.  If the CF/FE devices forum shows signs of
being pushed out by a long running alien conspiracy discussion, something
is wrong.

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


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 18:56:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10645;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:55:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:55:01 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b27934acb803 [12.72.128.90]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118211441.0080a820 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981118204548.0068e6b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:50:23 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PnmWp3.0.Fc2.5YuKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24769
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed wrote:

   >  I would like very much to get this message through to
   >  Rick Monteverde:
   >
   >  This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, THIS
   >  CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the
   >  water out of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it
   >  externally with a thermistor, a thermocouple, and a
   >  thermometer.

Mitchell wrote:

   >  Is Jed changing experiments?
   >
   >    Out of the electrolytic cell?
   >
   >    From only one point in the cell, or was it from a
   >  single point in a stream running through the cell?  If
   >  yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?
   >
   >    Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the
   >  electrolytic cell?
   >
   >    What was the impact upon the level in the cell?
   >     or on the circulation rate?
   >
   >    What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic
   >  portion of the cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?

Well I'd be forced to admit that at least Jed could claim that Barnard
instability had nothing to do with measuring the temperature of water in a
cup. But how that one slice of data relates to the experiment as a whole
(in ways Mitchell asks for instance), or the entire PIN to POUT, I don't
know.

I feel pretty frustrated at this point. You guys aren't comparing apples to
apples, oranges to oranges, or even apples to oranges. You're just them at
each other. Somebody got vodka and a blender?

I tried...

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 19:41:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29270;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:39:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:39:46 -0800
Message-Id: <199811190339.VAA09398 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:37:49 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Experimental Results Posted re Newman Energy Machine
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Hy543.0.497.1CvKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24770
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Stefan Hartman in Germany has just posted some interesting results
>following his experiments with the Newman Energy Machine.
>
>These results can be found at:
>
>http://www.overunity.com/newman2/
>
>Best regards,
>
>Evan Soule'
>NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
>EvanSoule josephnewman.com
>www.josephnewman.com

***{Hi Evan. I checked your link, above. Very interesting. Do you know if
the guy has tried using a stand alone Newman coil with a high speed arcing
cycle as a battery charger? If the negative current spikes add up to more
than the positive current, as you guys have claimed in the past, then you
should be able to attach one of these gadgets to a bank of batteries that
are running a conventional electric motor, and keep them perpetually
charged despite the current draw of the motor itself. In that case, you
wouldn't need a Newman motor per se. Any electric motor would do just as
well. Since the motor would run until it wore out, and would never pull
down the batteries, it would seem that anyone could prove (or disprove) the
Newman effect with such a device. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 19:55:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03689;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:54:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:54:23 -0800
Message-ID: <00be01be136f$b52a52e0$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Welcome to H20U! (http://207.108.77.26/h2ou/h2index.htm)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:49:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE1334.FA52A560"
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: <"qLYEE2.0.Yv.kPvKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24771
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_0019_01BE1334.FA52A560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Welcome to Hach Company's H2O University(TM)=20
            =20
Student Lab New Stuff Teacher's Lounge=20
            Safety Guidelines for Students Feedback Safety Guidelines =
for Educators=20
   =20


Send mail to webmaster hach.com with questions or comments about this =
web site.
            Copyright =A9 1996, 1997, 1998 Hach Company
            Copyright and trademark information   =20
               This page was last updated 10/26/98
            =20


------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE1334.FA52A560
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Welcome to H20U!</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://207.108.77.26/h2ou/h2index.htm><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC =
"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D600>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD>
            <H5 align=3Dcenter>Welcome to Hach Company's H2O =
University(TM)</H5></TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD><!--webbot bot=3D"ImageMap" polygon=3D"(411,197) (405,234) =
(440,242) (445,201) h2oufdbk.htm" polygon=3D"(333,181) (332,226) =
(368,229) (368,183) h2about.htm" polygon=3D"(314,280) (333,271) =
(447,275) (465,283) (459,362) (439,367) (437,357) (343,359) (339,370) =
(320,362) h2safe2.htm" polygon=3D"(206,94) (187,92) (161,98) (141,107) =
(139,99) (131,98) (109,125) (62,92) (56,372) (113,355) (116,143) =
(132,157) (143,149) (142,139) (167,138) (189,138) (201,139) (214,134) =
(215,103) h2slab.htm" polygon=3D"(394,104) (415,94) (450,98) (472,113) =
(472,101) (483,100) (499,123) (544,95) (541,387) (487,365) (491,144) =
(476,155) (467,151) (469,142) (445,137) (419,136) (408,142) (394,136) =
h2lounge.htm" src=3D"../images/hallway.jpg" border=3D"0" startspan =
--><MAP=20
            name=3DFrontPageMap><AREA =
coords=3D411,197,405,234,440,242,445,201=20
                href=3D"h2oufdbk.htm" shape=3DPOLY><AREA=20
                coords=3D333,181,332,226,368,229,368,183 =
href=3D"h2about.htm"=20
                shape=3DPOLY><AREA=20
                =
coords=3D314,280,333,271,447,275,465,283,459,362,439,367,437,357,343,359,=
339,370,320,362=20
                href=3D"h2safe2.htm" shape=3DPOLY><AREA=20
                =
coords=3D206,94,187,92,161,98,141,107,139,99,131,98,109,125,62,92,56,372,=
113,355,116,143,132,157,143,149,142,139,167,138,189,138,201,139,214,134,2=
15,103=20
                href=3D"h2slab.htm" shape=3DPOLY><AREA=20
                =
coords=3D394,104,415,94,450,98,472,113,472,101,483,100,499,123,544,95,541=
,387,487,365,491,144,476,155,467,151,469,142,445,137,419,136,408,142,394,=
136=20
                href=3D"h2lounge.htm" shape=3DPOLY></MAP><A=20
            href=3D"../_vti_bin/shtml.dll/h2ou/h2index.htm/map"><IMG =
border=3D0=20
            height=3D425 isMap src=3D"../images/hallway.jpg" =
useMap=3D#FrontPageMap=20
            width=3D600></A><!--webbot bot=3D"ImageMap" endspan =
i-checksum=3D"37164" --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D600>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D200><A =
href=3D"h2slab.htm"><STRONG>Student=20
            Lab</STRONG></A></TD>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D200><A =
href=3D"h2about.htm"><STRONG>New=20
            Stuff</STRONG></A></TD>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D200><A =
href=3D"h2lounge.htm"><STRONG>Teacher's=20
            Lounge</STRONG></A></TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D33%><A href=3D"h2safe2.htm">Safety =
Guidelines=20
            for Students</A></TD>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D33%><A =
href=3D"h2oufdbk.htm">Feedback</A></TD>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D33%><A href=3D"h2safety.htm">Safety =
Guidelines=20
            for Educators</A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P align=3Dleft>&nbsp;</P>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D600>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D400><!--webbot bot=3D"Include" =
u-include=3D"../_private/inclfoot.htm" tag=3D"BODY" startspan -->
            <H5>Send mail to <A=20
            href=3D"mailto:webmaster hach.com">webmaster@hach.com =
</A>with=20
            questions or comments about this web site.<BR>Copyright =
&copy; 1996,=20
            1997, 1998 Hach Company</H5><!--webbot bot=3D"Include" =
endspan i-checksum=3D"38098" -->
            <H5 align=3Dleft><A =
href=3D"../about/alegal.htm#Legal">Copyright and=20
            trademark information</A></H5></TD>
        <TD align=3Dright vAlign=3Dtop width=3D200>&nbsp; </TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D400>&nbsp; </TD>
        <TD align=3Dright vAlign=3Dtop width=3D200>
            <P align=3Dright><FONT size=3D2>This page was last =
updated<!--webbot bot=3D"Timestamp" s-type=3D"EDITED" =
s-format=3D"%m/%d/%y" startspan -->=20
            10/26/98<!--webbot bot=3D"Timestamp" endspan =
i-checksum=3D"13917" =
--></FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE1334.FA52A560--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 20:05:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07243;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:01:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:01:27 -0800
Message-ID: <00bf01be1370$b303fb00$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: About Hach Company (http://207.108.77.26/about/about.htm)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:57:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE1336.00754640"
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: <"I8r-g3.0.1n1.NWvKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24772
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_0022_01BE1336.00754640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Easier to analyze the water than drive all over Georgia.   :-)

http://207.108.77.26/about/about.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE1336.00754640
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="About Hach Company.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="About Hach Company.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://207.108.77.26/about/about.htm
Modified=C03B2C807013BE01E9

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE1336.00754640--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 20:50:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA22523;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981118234136.0068a20c pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:41:36 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24773
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitch Swartz asks:

	Is Jed changing experiments?

Tinsley, Cravens, Mallove and I did this check in all flow calorimetry
experiments. The experiment in question, which produced 1000+ watts with a
liter per minute flow rate, was the CETI Power Gen demo, but I do it the
same way every time.


	Out of the electrolytic cell?

I am not sure what this means, but I think the question is: Did I test a
sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. Answer: yes, and I
tested another sample taken from the reservoir too, for comparison.


	From only one point in the cell, or was it from a single point in a
	stream running through the cell?  

The entire stream running through the cell is diverted into the cup. The
outlet hose from the cell is diverted into the cup instead of going back
into the reservoir. This is also done to measure the flow rate (Galileo's
method).


	If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?

Yes.


	Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the electrolytic cell?

Apparently it did, because the outlet thermocouple in the plumbing did
agree with my measurement. *I* mix the fluid in the cup, by stirring. All
of the fluid that moves through the system is channeled into the outlet
hose, and from there into the cup.

The point of the test is to independently confirm that the fluid is mixed
properly, the outlet thermocouple is working right, and the flow meter is
correct. If the calorimeter did not mix its fluids completely, this test
will reveal that fact.


	What was the impact upon the level in the cell?

No impact. I collect the fluid after it leaves the cell. The reservoir
level drops slightly for a few minutes, until I pour the sample back.


	or on the circulation rate?

No measurable effect is seen. The flow meter is never affected, and the
flow rate we calculate by Galileo's method agrees with the flowmeter as
closely as we can measure. (There was no flow meter at Power Gen.)


	What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic portion of the
	cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?

I have no idea.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 21:55:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09919;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:53:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:53:08 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981118235318.009a7760 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:53:18 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: List divisions
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b2791365e650 [12.64.4.163]>
References: <v01530506b27908057c65 [208.228.222.128]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RNw5e.0.rQ2.39xKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24774
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 02:18 PM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Ok, so...
>
>1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
>2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
>3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics

That Vortcor definition is too limited.  I want to unsubscribe from
Vortex-L and yet still have the ability to fully discuss experimental
results, including planning for replication etc.  Also, I think 3 lists is
just too many.

How about this:

>1. Vortcor for experimental results and discussion only.
>2. Vortex-L stays just like it is.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 23:14:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA26491;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:13:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:13:05 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:13:00 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: List divisions
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981118235318.009a7760 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981118225217.17777A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"BujUh.0.rT6.0KyKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24775
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Scott Little wrote:

> At 02:18 PM 11/18/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
> >Ok, so...
> >
> >1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
> >2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
> >3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics
> 
> That Vortcor definition is too limited.  I want to unsubscribe from
> Vortex-L and yet still have the ability to fully discuss experimental
> results, including planning for replication etc.  Also, I think 3 lists is
> just too many.

Hey!  This topic should only be discussed on Vortex Review Letters D !!!

> 
> How about this:
> 
> >1. Vortcor for experimental results and discussion only.
> >2. Vortex-L stays just like it is.

I had similar intention.  I hoped to use vortexB only as purgatory, as an
unmoderated, NON-ARCHIVED, small-audience place for banishment of
occasional flamewars and long-running non-experimental discussions.  (sort
of like s.p.f? :)  but without spammers grabbing your email address.)  It
would normally be silent, and have a small subset of vortex-L as
subscribers.

A FOURTH list

I'm subscribed to a couple of lists which have only a few messages PER
YEAR.  They are announce-only lists, meant for distribution of conference
schedules, calls for papers, etc.  When long-time vortex subscribers feel
it necessary to leave the group for months at a time, it would be nice to
make this sort of announcements-list available.  That way they can keep a
toe in, and are occasionally reminded that the group still trundles along. 
Like christmas cards from old roommates.

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 18 23:24:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA29775;
	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:23:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:23:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3653ACC6.22ABE556 telusplanet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:29:42 -0600
From: "Don J. S. Adams" <donadams telusplanet.net>
Reply-To: donadams telusplanet.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"e579S.0.9H7.dTyKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24776
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

test
-- 
We must accept the truth, 
even if it changes our 
point of view. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don J. S. Adams
Managing Consultant
Microsoft
Main Campus, Bldg 1
Redmond, WA
USA

425-882-3431	USA
403-998-4066	Canada

http://www.intergate.bc.ca/business/rave

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 00:28:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA11921;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:27:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:27:03 -0800
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:23:53 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811190326_MC2-60B9-68A3 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"dxRdB.0.Bw2.NPzKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24777
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>> Ok, so...

1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics



.. is that about right?


- Rick Monteverde <<

Sorry, I don't see the need for vortcor as well as vortex-L.  It could
create more confusion and double posting.  Whats wrong with vortex-L for
all on-topic info and discussion and vortexB for all the rest - as they
were designed by Bill B originally?????

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 00:36:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA13848;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:34:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:34:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3654FE8D.F72FB0DA ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:30:53 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
References: <199811190326_MC2-60B9-68A3 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6UY1o3.0.FO3.oWzKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24778
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I really don't think this is on-topic, Please move it to VortexB)

Norman Horwood wrote:

> >> Ok, so...
>
> 1. Vortcor for on-topic announcements and results
> 2. Vortex-L for on-topic discussions on those results and ongoing exp's
> 3. VortexB for chat with a least some bent towards the main topics
>
> .. is that about right?
>
> - Rick Monteverde <<
>
> Sorry, I don't see the need for vortcor as well as vortex-L.  It could
> create more confusion and double posting.  Whats wrong with vortex-L for
> all on-topic info and discussion and vortexB for all the rest - as they
> were designed by Bill B originally?????
>
> Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 01:05:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19371;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:04:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:04:44 -0800
Message-ID: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:00:34 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Coil Question [Please Help!]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"048R91.0.bk4.hyzKs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24779
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hello, Can anyone please give me help on what wire gauge (magnet wire) I
would need for 3 amps and use of over an hour and how many turns of said
wire would be required for the driving potential on 50v to not let more
than 3 amps flow.

Further can anyone help me on what is used to snub back EMF kicks in
high frequency systems such as T.V. transformers, I need to get the coil
to turn of fast as possible (driven at 50v at 3 amps as above).


Thanks in advance,
John Berry


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 01:16:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA21685;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:15:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:15:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119041712.0081c660 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:17:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981118234136.0068a20c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NSB553.0.kI5.Q6-Ks" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24780
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



 part II:

At 11:41 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitch Swartz asks:
>
>	Is Jed changing experiments?
>
>Tinsley, Cravens, Mallove and I did this check in all flow calorimetry
>experiments. The experiment in question, which produced 1000+ watts with a
>liter per minute flow rate, was the CETI Power Gen demo, but I do it the
>same way every time.
>
>
>	Out of the electrolytic cell?
>
>I am not sure what this means, but I think the question is: Did I test a
>sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. Answer: yes, and I
>tested another sample taken from the reservoir too, for comparison.


  So a 1/4 liter was removed from each.

  How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell
to test the temperature?

   How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit
to test the temperature?

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


>	From only one point in the cell, or was it from a single point in a
>	stream running through the cell?  
>
>The entire stream running through the cell is diverted into the cup. The
>outlet hose from the cell is diverted into the cup instead of going back
>into the reservoir. This is also done to measure the flow rate (Galileo's
>method).
>


    So the removal was done to measure flow rate by decoupling flow from
the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance to
the flow.  The flow was powered by a 85 watt impellor pump, is that correct?


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


>	If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?
>
>Yes.

  Making it subject to Bernard instability

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

  
>	Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the electrolytic cell?
>
>Apparently it did, because the outlet thermocouple in the plumbing did
>agree with my measurement. *I* mix the fluid in the cup, by stirring. All
>of the fluid that moves through the system is channeled into the outlet
>hose, and from there into the cup.

   Obviously this refers to in circuit testing as well.  

   Did they mix?  These samples from the flow circuit AND
the electrolytic cell?
   When you measured the temperature of the samples, the above
states that you did not remove the fluids from your temperature
measuring cup BEFORE each measurement.

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


>The point of the test is to independently confirm that the fluid is mixed
>properly, the outlet thermocouple is working right, and the flow meter is
>correct. If the calorimeter did not mix its fluids completely, this test
>will reveal that fact.


  The description does not test mixing of any sort.


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


  What is the impact upon the level in the cell?

>No impact. I collect the fluid after it leaves the cell. The reservoir
>level drops slightly for a few minutes, until I pour the sample back.
>

   Jed claims that to remove a 1/4 liter had no impact on its
removal from the electrolytic cell. 

    The total volume of the electrolytic cell 
  was =    cc?
   

   After the electrolytic and flow samples were taken (~500cc)
they were mixed and reinserted..  to the electrolytic cell, OR
the flow circuit?


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


>	or on the circulation rate?
>
>No measurable effect is seen. The flow meter is never affected, and the
>flow rate we calculate by Galileo's method agrees with the flowmeter as
>closely as we can measure. (There was no flow meter at Power Gen.)

   If the flow was measured by uncoupling the circuit, thereby
removing resistive obstruction to flow, it could not have been 
tested in real time since the removal was purportedly testing the flow.


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


>	What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic portion of the
>	cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?
>
>I have no idea.
>
>- Jed

    Then it was a dumb experiment where not even the volume of 
surface area of the cathode is calculable.

    Perhaps you might reconsider this important matter before
it is estimated independantly.

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 05:11:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA27690;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:08:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:08:53 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:06:50 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7627.2543.17962328 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"BD-jM.0.am6.bX1Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24781
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Date:    Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:29:45 +0100
From:    Jan Pieter Verhey <jverhey GYRAL.COM>
Subject: [q-mind] Stirred and Shaken: new evidence for quantum antenna
         hypothesis? -- Matti Pitkanen
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka pcu.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Stirred and Shaken: new evidence for quantum antenna hypothesis?


The article 'Stirred and shaken'  in the latest New Scientist
(Nov 14 1998 [NS])  tells about a chemical anomaly, which
might be interesting  for those  consciousness theorists
trying to identify mechanisms generating coherent light
in biosystems.


Japanese chemist Kazamuri Dozen and his colleagues  have observed
mysterious splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen at room temperature
using a simple catalyst (copper oxide in powder form) and  by stirring
the liquid.  The quicker the container is stirred the more hydrogen and
oxygen are produced.  Usually the splitting occurs at  temperature of
about 3000 C,  which suggests the  energy .3 eV for the O-H bond (I would
be happy  if someone could provide  the precise value of the energy) and
is driven by light.


Domen believes  that a  direct transformation of the kinetic
energy of the liquid motion to chemical energy must take place: standard
wisdom allows only the transformation  *kinetic energy to thermal
energy to chemical energy*.  There is no idea about the underlying
mechanism and new physics might be involved. Article also tells that
already 1980  analogous direct transformation of acoustic energy
to chemical energy was  discovered and gave rise to the field
of sonochemistry.   There is also the mysterious
phenomenon of sonoluminescence and I have told in earlier posting about
possible TGD based explanation of sonoluminescence in terms
of quantum antenna hypothesis (for the  quantum antenna hypothesis
and  its connection to sonoluminescence see  [antenna] ).
An attractive possibility is that liquid motion somehow generates
coherent light which in turn drives the reaction




Quantum antenna hypothesis states that various linear  structures, in
particular microtubules, can  serve as sources of  coherent light.
Coherent light is created by light like vacuum em currents at
almost vacuum  spacetime sheet associated with the structure in question.
Effect is purely TGD:eish and implied by the induced gauge field concept:
in standard model electromagnetic currents involve always elementary
particles as charge carriers.   Strictly lightlike currents with
elementary particles as charge carriers are not even
possible since all known charged particles are massive.


The first  TGD based  mechanism explaining the anomalous splitting of
hydrogen coming into mind  is following.

a)  Stirring creates linear cylindrical vortex like structures, which are
accompanied by spacetime sheets   carrying light like vacuum currents.
The splitting to oxygen and hydrogen is driven by the coherent light
emitted by the vacuum currents.  The energies for the photons of the
coherent light come as multiples of E= pi/L, where L  is  the length of
the  linear structures involved. L should be  very roughly of order
10^(-6) meters to give rise to quanta with energy E  larger than  E about
.1 eV.  One cannot say much about the    role of the catalyst powder: if
the size of the powder particle   determines the length of the linear
structures  then effect should depend on the size of  the powder particle
and become small for large powder particles.


b)  The rotational motion   creates classical Z0 magnetic fields
(purely TGD:eish effect) realized as Z0 magnetic flux tubes
and a natural expectation is that these flux tubes are accompanied
by cylindrical spacetime sheets  carrying light like vacuum
currents.   Since quarks feed their Z0 gauge fluxes to the spacetime
sheets having typically twice the cell size,  the length of
the cylindrical structures would be of correct order of magnitude
of about 10^(-6) meters.  In fact, the generation of Z^0 magnetic flux
tubes was suggested already  many years ago to lead to the observed
breaking of the super fluidity at much smaller critical velocity than
predicted by standard physics [super].




What is interesting from the point of view of consciousness theorizing  is
that in gel-phase vigorous streaming of intracellular liquid  occurs.
Could the   function   of the streaming  be the generation  of lightlike
vacuum current emitting    coherent biophotons. Could it be possible to
test this hypothesis by looking for an additional sink of metabolic
energy in cell? I remember from some discussion group that there is
evidence for an anomalous sink of metabolic energy. Perhaps Stuart
Hameroff knows something  about this?
*******



References

[NS]  'Stirred and Shaken', New Scientist,  No 2160, Nov 14 1998.

[antenna] The chapter
'Microtubules as quantum antennas'  in the book 'TGD inspired
theory of consciousness ...'
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/cbook.html#Ch17.

[super] The chapter 'Macroscopic quantum phenomena and
CP_ geometry' in the book 'TGD'
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/tgd.html#Ch25.


With Best,
Matti Pitkanen


-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 06:28:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16179;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:24:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:24:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119082111.0077d814 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:21:11 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Vortcor vs Vortex
In-Reply-To: <199811190326_MC2-60B9-68A3 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hSxbR2.0.fy3.Ke2Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24782
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 03:23 11/19/98 -0500, Norman Horwood wrote:

>Sorry, I don't see the need for vortcor as well as vortex-L.  It could
>create more confusion and double posting.  Whats wrong with vortex-L for
>all on-topic info and discussion and vortexB for all the rest - as they
>were designed by Bill B originally?????

Vortcor is for actual experiments.  No Leonids, no Monica, no aliens, no
cool web sites, no flame wars, and precious little theory.  With strict
policing on Vortcor to squelch these "chatty" posts, it's message traffic
should average about 1 or 2 per day.  There will be bursts of discussion
about new experimental results separated by periods of absolute quiet.

Vortex-L runs 20-30 messages per day, 90-95% of which do not meet my
criteria for Vortcor.

I want to quit getting 20-30 email messages per day but I want to continue
a world-wide cooperative effort in new energy research.  With Vortcor in
place and running properly, I expect to subscribe (via invitation) the
major contributors in cold fusion (e.g. McKubre, Celani, Storms, Oriani,
Miles, Kucherov, Kim, Claytor, Bockris, etc.).  Most of them will give
Vortcor a try when invited properly.  If it really does run 1-2 messages
per day and stays strictly on-topic, they will stay and we will all get to
benefit from their wisdom, experience, and up-to-date experimental progress.  



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 06:29:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16261;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:24:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:24:39 -0800
Message-ID: <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:25:43 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6MZdD3.0._z3.de2Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24783
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

John Berry wrote:
> 
> Hello, Can anyone please give me help on what wire gauge (magnet wire) I
> would need for 3 amps and use of over an hour and how many turns of said
> wire would be required for the driving potential on 50v to not let more
> than 3 amps flow.

Well, John, if you used #22 AWG solid copper wire, it has 0.0165 ohms
of resistance per foot of length.  At 50 volts, resistance-limited
to 3 amps requires 50/3 = 16.67 ohms resistance.  So, 1000 ft of
#22 wire would limit at 3 amps with 50 volts impressed.  The heating
power in the wire would be 3 X 50 = 150 watts.  You would need to
provide enough cooling for the wire to reject this heat power.
What are you trying to do? 
What does the coil look like?
What is the coil wound on? - Air core?  Ferrite core?  Steel core?
Can the coil be force cooled?  With air?  With water?  With oil?
What mechanical stresses are on the wire?
Are you working at high frequency?
In other words, John, you need to specify the complete problem -
inductive coil design is a complicated task unless you want to do a
trial-and-error job.  Then, it may be a long task!

Need more input.

The biggest problem is figuring out if this is "on-topic" or not - if
not, it should go to vortex???? or to off-list exchanges.  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 06:36:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA21463;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:35:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:35:12 -0800
Message-ID: <36542CAC.3BF5 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:35:24 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"G93vg1.0.DF5.Wo2Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24784
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
  Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:14:55 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

Once again Kirk Shanahan has picked up on something very significant,
I believe, to this discussion.  That is the clear divergence between
the picture presented by Scott Chubb and what Ed Storms is now
indicating as his view of CANR.

If you believe that the process is cold fusion initiated by some
form of quantum coherance appropriate to the conditions of a
perfect lattice at T=0, that is what Scott Chubb has been considering.
Of course, the experimentalists have been at work gathering evidence
which tends to call much of Chubb theory into question.  Thus as
Ed Storms attempts to synthesize something from the divergent
results from a variety of experiments what he has come up with
has less and less connection to the Chubb picture.  Storms is
now suggesting something akin to a (d, alpha) reaction involving
a yet to be specified "impurity" with the cathode surface
conditions playing, it seems, a more significant role than the
bulk material.  Those surface conditions simply are not addressed
by anything in the Chubb theory; and, I should think, all prospects
for having lattice symmetries dictate the outcome of reaction
process fly out the window.

It now seems that neither Chubbs nor Storms can gain much comfort
from what the other has to say on this subject.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 07:09:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02517;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:06:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:06:17 -0800
Message-ID: <36555A4C.2ABDCD55 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:02:21 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz> <36542A67.1579@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YYFnA2.0.Fd.fF3Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24785
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



"Francis J. Stenger" wrote:

> John Berry wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Can anyone please give me help on what wire gauge (magnet wire) I
> > would need for 3 amps and use of over an hour and how many turns of said
> > wire would be required for the driving potential on 50v to not let more
> > than 3 amps flow.
>
> Well, John, if you used #22 AWG solid copper wire, it has 0.0165 ohms
> of resistance per foot of length.  At 50 volts, resistance-limited
> to 3 amps requires 50/3 = 16.67 ohms resistance.  So, 1000 ft of
> #22 wire would limit at 3 amps with 50 volts impressed.  The heating
> power in the wire would be 3 X 50 = 150 watts.  You would need to
> provide enough cooling for the wire to reject this heat power.
> What are you trying to do?
> What does the coil look like?

rectangular with a 2 centimeter (about an inch) core.

>
> What is the coil wound on? - Air core?  Ferrite core?  Steel core?

some non-magnetic non-conductive material (wood?), Would an air core be better
for cooling?

>
> Can the coil be force cooled?  With air?  With water?  With oil?

not really

>
> What mechanical stresses are on the wire?

only the magnetic force of the coil on it's self.

>
> Are you working at high frequency?

freq. will range from 50hz to tens of thousands, it is pulsed DC the off time
will be from 2x the on time up to 7x the on time.
150 watts divided by 3 = 50 watts
150 watts divided by 8 = 18.75 watts

>
> In other words, John, you need to specify the complete problem -
> inductive coil design is a complicated task unless you want to do a
> trial-and-error job.  Then, it may be a long task!

Thanks for the help, really appreciated and needed, Is there anything else you
need to know?


John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 07:28:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA10852;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:26:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:26:35 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:26:30 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortcor vs Vortex
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119082111.0077d814 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981119070650.14965A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NsyEp.0.Uf2.gY3Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24786
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Scott Little wrote:

> I want to quit getting 20-30 email messages per day but I want to continue
> a world-wide cooperative effort in new energy research.  With Vortcor in
> place and running properly, I expect to subscribe (via invitation) the
> major contributors in cold fusion (e.g. McKubre, Celani, Storms, Oriani,
> Miles, Kucherov, Kim, Claytor, Bockris, etc.).  Most of them will give
> Vortcor a try when invited properly.  If it really does run 1-2 messages
> per day and stays strictly on-topic, they will stay and we will all get to
> benefit from their wisdom, experience, and up-to-date experimental progress.  

That's right!

Scott and I seem to have independently aquired an itch to attract
far more real science to the list, and so these changes really are for the
future group.  Except for some clearer rules, vortex-L can continue as it
exists at present.  Is there a danger that nobody here would USE Scott's
new list?  Yes.  But once the new list existed, Scott could advertize as
he sees fit, and therefor attract an audience which would otherwise not
tolerate the high chat-traffic of Vortex.  Except for the time of its
creation, Vortex-L has never been publicly advertized at all, it has grown
through word of mouth.  When I have occasionally invited individual
outsiders to take a peek, they invariably unsubscribe again because of the
high traffic.  Most people do NOT check their email once per day.  Reading
vortex once per week is an enormous excercise, even if most messages are
deleted unread.  Current subscribers have undergone natural selection, and
anyone who couldn't handle the traffic level is long gone.  But some of
those casualties were serious losses for us.  Scott's list can bring them
back.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 19 07:35:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA13572;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:32:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:32:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:25:02 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ReDxv1.0.-J3.ce3Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24787
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz asks:

	How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to test
	the temperature?

I never remove fluid from the cell. I remove it from the return hose after
it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would have to
turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell. Why
would I do that?


	How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the
	temperature?

With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our
cells, twice a day


	So the removal was done to measure flow rate by decoupling flow from
	the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance to
	the flow.

Yes, but as I stated previously, in repeated tests with flow meters we show
that this has no measurable effect on the flow. The change in resistance
(impedance) is too small to be measured. In any case the test procedure
would reveal mixing problems, even if it did influence flow rate.


	The flow was powered by a 85 watt impeller pump, is that correct?

The motor was rated at 50 watts maximum, as stated in the report. Total AC
power consumption for all components and instruments in the system was 85
watts. Much of this was dissipated by the transformers external to the system.


Swartz: "If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?"

Me: "Yes."

Swartz: "Making it subject to Bernard instability"

I do not see how this could affect the temperature of water in a cup
outside the system.


Yesterday, Swartz asked, "Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the
electrolytic cell?"

I responded, "Apparently it did, because the outlet thermocouple in the
plumbing did agree with my measurement." That is incorrect. As I stated in
the report, when the fluid left the cell it passed through an inline mixer
before striking the thermocouple. Therefore I have no way of knowing
whether it was well mixed in the cell. However, it other cells I have
tested without inline mixers, I have never seen a measurable mixing problem.

The inline mixer was mounted horizontally by the way, as shown in the
photographs.


	Did they mix?  These samples from the flow circuit AND the
	electrolytic cell?

I do not understand this question. There is only one sample, from the flow
circuit outlet hose. With the CETI cell, the fluid passes through the
electrolytic cell, exits, and pours into the cup. With other flow
calorimeters it passes around the electrolytic cell and then falls into the
cup. It all cases, I have never seen evidence that the outlet thermocouple
measures the temperature incorrectly because of mixing problems. If there
was a mixing problem, the temperature of the fluid would change when I stir
externally, and it would not agree with the outlet thermocouple.


	When you measured the temperature of the samples, the above states
	that you did not remove the fluids from your temperature measuring
	cup BEFORE each measurement.

I do not understand this statement. How can you measure the temperature in
the cup after you dump the fluid back into the reservoir?!? Look, it is
very simple. Here's the procedure:

1. Divert the outlet hose from the reservoir into the measuring cup.
2. Wait for a fixed period of time (15 seconds with a large cell, 1 minute
with smaller cells).
3. Put the hose back into the reservoir.
4. Stir the fluid in the cup and measure the temperature before it cools
down significantly.
5. Measure the volume of fluid in the cup to determine the flow rate.
6. Pour the fluid back into the reservoir.


	The description does not test mixing of any sort.

I do not see how it does not. The temperature would change if the fluid had
not been previously mixed. If you assert that fluid is not mixed and
thermal gradients exist, the only way to test that assertion is to mix the
fluid and see whether the temperature changes.


	Jed claims that to remove a 1/4 liter had no impact on its removal
	from the electrolytic cell. 

I did not remove the fluid from the cell. I removed it from the outlet
stream so it did not return to the reservoir for few minutes. This affects
the reservoir water level, not electrolytic cell.


	The total volume of the electrolytic cell  was =    cc?

40 ml as stated in the report. I do not know how much free space there was
in between the beads. I would estimate 10 cc. You could figure it out.
   

	After the electrolytic and flow samples were taken (~500cc) they
	were mixed and reinserted. to the electrolytic cell, OR the flow
	circuit?

They were 250 cc each, not 500 cc. They were not mixed! They were taken at
different times, of course. Why would I mix them? That would make the
temperature halfway between the outlet and the reservoir. Samples were
returned to the reservoir, as I stated in the previous message. Where else
could I return them to?  How can I possibly return the fluid anywhere else
in the loop? It is sealed. It has to be, or water would spray and leak
everywhere.


	If the flow was measured by uncoupling the circuit, thereby removing
	resistive obstruction to flow, it could not have been  tested in real
	time since the removal was purportedly testing the flow.

With a flowmeter, flow is measured in real-time while Galileo's method is
used. That's the whole point: to verify flowmeter performance. The water
passes through the flowmeter before it is diverted into the cup. The
flowmeter is upstream between the reservoir and cell. Otherwise we could
not be sure impedance remains the same while we test.

Also, when the flowmeter records a steady rate of, say, 25 ml per minute
for many hours, and then you divert the flow into a graduated cylinder for
one minute and you measure 25 ml, it is very unlikely that flowmeter has
been wrong by the precise extent needed to fool you.

As stated in my report, I tried raising the collection cup and hose as high
as it would reach to cause maximum impedance, but I saw no measurable
change in the flow rate.


Swartz: What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic portion of the
cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?

Me: I have no idea.

Swartz: Then it was a dumb experiment where not even the volume of  surface
area of the cathode is calculable.

Of course it is calculable! I'm sure CETI calculated it, but I did not. You
can calculate it if you like. As stated in my report, there were 40
milliliters of beads. Each bead is 1 mm in diameter. Look up CETI's patents
to figure out how many milligrams of nickel and palladium are in each bead.


	Perhaps you might reconsider this important matter before it is
	estimated independently.

It does not seem important to me. Anyone can estimate surface area
independently anytime they like, with a little geometry. The beads have
nothing to do with the mixing which I performed external to the cell by
stirring. Therefore they have nothing to do with this issue we are
discussing. In any case, as I said in the report: "Static in-line mixers
ensure mixing. (These are plastic objects about an inch long with vanes to
stir the flow.)"

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 07:37:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14785;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:34:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:34:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119093115.0078430c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:31:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
In-Reply-To: <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WKedY1.0.jc3.Sg3Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24788
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 09:25 11/19/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

<snip the beginnings of a good lecture on coil design, heat transfer
problems, etc.>

>The biggest problem is figuring out if this is "on-topic" or not - if
>not, it should go to vortex???? or to off-list exchanges.  :-)

On the new Vortcor, I think it would be appropriate for John Berry to ask
such a question.  He obviously is trying to build an experiment.  

But a lengthly series of back-and-forth exchanges in which someone like
Frank generously provides John with a short course in coil design is not
appropriate for Vortcor. 

What to do?

I propose that REPLIES to questions such as John's be made PRIVATELY on
Vortcor.  If someone besides John wants to hear the replies, that person
should contact John and say, "Please cc me on all the replies you get to
your question"...a service that John should be willing to perform since
he's getting free help from the group.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 07:43:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA16921;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:39:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:39:33 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:39:18 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Dragging vortexB invective into vortex
In-Reply-To: <199811190326_MC2-60B9-68A3 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981119072738.14965B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"xs6-I1.0.I84.qk3Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24789
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Norman Horwood wrote:

> Sorry, I don't see the need for vortcor as well as vortex-L.  It could
> create more confusion and double posting.  Whats wrong with vortex-L for
> all on-topic info and discussion and vortexB for all the rest - as they
> were designed by Bill B originally?????

We have similar goals, but mine are to use vortex and vortcor rather than
vortexB and vortex.  Scott Little is volunteering to become a moderator,
so he will initiate a new list, vortcor, and I will stay with vortex. 
Vortex-L will stay the same, and with luck, lots of new people will be
attracted by the new hard-science list.  (The alternative would be for me
to move to vortexB, while Scott takes over Vortex, and then I would
create vortexC as a flamer "time out" box). 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 19 08:03:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25495;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:00:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:00:58 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:00:47 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: and what is VortexB-L
In-Reply-To: <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981119074041.14965C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bWLx92.0.GE6.w24Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24790
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> The biggest problem is figuring out if this is "on-topic" or not - if
> not, it should go to vortex???? or to off-list exchanges.  :-)

Lets try to keep vortex the same.  Then we need only decide if a message
is worthy of Scott's list :)

VortexB should be for occasional use, for whenever the users start
complaining about long-running discussions which are clearly not about our
attempted experimental replication of reported anomalous phenomena.  The
CETI discussion is an example.  It became speculative and political, yet
some subscribers were still enjoying it.  Rather than banning that sort of
thread, we can have a place where it can continue, yet those who have no
interest can switch it off without having to keep changing subject-line
filters in their email program. 

Since many people here will normally not be subscribed to vortexB, it
can't really be used for non-science chat (well, it can, but be prepared
for invasion by a Meyer flamewar.)  The vortexB subscribers will complain
when the flamewar interrupts the off-topic chats! :) 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 19 08:13:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29361;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:11:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:11:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119110832.00696c88 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:08:32 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119093115.0078430c mail.eden.com>
References: <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
 <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7SiLT.0.hA7.eC4Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24791
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

>
>I propose that REPLIES to questions such as John's be made PRIVATELY on
>Vortcor.  If someone besides John wants to hear the replies, that person
>should contact John and say, "Please cc me on all the replies you get to
>your question"...

That would be a pain in the butt! Why should we have to ask everytime we
want to hear how something developed? I might be idly curious to find out
what happened with this coil thing -- why should I have to post an e-mail
message to find out. It is far easier to ignore a thread of messages than
it would be to issue requests to "please cc me" with this or that.

I thought your plan was to transfer extended discussions over to Vortex-L.
Why take 'em off line?

I honestly do not understand why you want to reduce traffic. Perhaps it is
because I can ignore or delete messages in a flash, with zero effort. When
I read the newspaper, I toss aside the classified ads and the Sports
section with effort. I can toss aside 100 Vortex messages unread just as
easily, and it does not bother me or take any time.

I want to categorize and segregate traffic, to make it a little easier to
ignore threads, but I would not care if 1000 messages a day came in. The
total volume of text would be less than the New York Times.

Maybe you are struggling with some kind of mailer software which requires
you to take action and expend effort for each message . . .

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 08:26:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA00283;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119111911.006981a8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:19:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: and what is VortexB-L
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981119074041.14965C-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xXYUf2.0.G4.jO4Ls" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24792
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Bill B. wrote:

>VortexB should be for occasional use, for whenever the users start
>complaining about long-running discussions which are clearly not about our
>attempted experimental replication of reported anomalous phenomena.  The
>CETI discussion is an example.

Which CETI discussion? The one now underway in the thread "Analysis of
Jed's �kilowatt'"? Should we move it to VortexB-L? (That would be fine with
me.)

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 09:04:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05537;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:01:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:55:20 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: and what is VortexB-L
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119111911.006981a8 pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981119083522.14965E-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id JAA05454
Resent-Message-ID: <"5ZFhh3.0.BM1.4x4Ls" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24794
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Bill B. wrote:
> 
> >VortexB should be for occasional use, for whenever the users start
> >complaining about long-running discussions which are clearly not about our
> >attempted experimental replication of reported anomalous phenomena.  The
> >CETI discussion is an example.
> 
> Which CETI discussion? The one now underway in the thread "Analysis of
> Jed's �kilowatt'"? Should we move it to VortexB-L? (That would be fine with
> me.)

OOps, typo.  SETI, with speculation on hoaxes, coverups, on whether aliens
are visiting earth or not, etc.  Perhaps the SETI thread would be somewhat
on-topic if the goal was to get access to a dish, and to publish spectra,
RF sky maps, and sound files on a subscriber's website.  That would be
replication of reported anomalies and openminded experimentation involving
taboo science.  But then, the main vortex topics have usually involved
taboo physic experiments, rather than taboo science in general.  (I
imagined that vortex might eventually grow so large that it would split
into separate CF and physics lists.  If there was current overwhelming
interest in taboo biology and taboo archeology, a split into several
specialised lists would be considered.)

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 19 09:11:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20031;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:07:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:07:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119110635.00784f1c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:06:35 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119110832.00696c88 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119093115.0078430c mail.eden.com>
 <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
 <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IRdvH.0.uu4.M15Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24795
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:08 11/19/98 -0500, Jed wrote:

>I honestly do not understand why you want to reduce traffic.

I want to keep top researchers in this field subscribed to the new list.
Various happenings in the past lead me to believe that will be impossible
unless the list is very low-traffic.

I think you are relatively unusual, Jed...in a good way.  Most folks are
uncomfortable with large amounts of information.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 09:18:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08891;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <015a01be13de$f7403400$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <aki ix.netcom.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:05:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"gRnTY1.0.nA2.Q85Ls" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24796
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: aki ix.netcom.com <aki@ix.netcom.com>
To: fjsparb sprintmail.com <fjsparb@sprintmail.com>
Cc: aki ix.netcom.com <aki@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 7:17 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Water Jet Cutting re: Boron-10 Carbide target]

Akira:

The bombardment of Boron (20% Boron 10) with protons/deuterons dates back to
about 1927 when Cockcroft&Walton used their 500-700 Kev machine. the return
on investment was not good.  :-) There was deuterium in the Hydrogen they
used but, deuterium was not "discovered" until a couple of years later.

Since the proton or deuteron velocity v = (V*e/.5*m)^1/2 the
kilometer/second velocity  in a water jet "pails"in comparison.  :-)

OTOH. If the droplets in the Water Jet act like the Mossbauer Effect and the
kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2  is the mass of a droplet as opposed to a proton or
deuteron , then things could get interesting at Water Jet velocities.




You wrote:


>November 19, 1998
>
>Fred,
>
>Is it realistically possible?
>Just curious.
>
>-ak-
>
>> November 18, 1998
>>
>> Vortex,
>>
>> It seems that I misread Fred's earlier post. I took him to say that
>> Boron-10 spallated low energy neutrons rather that Boron-10, 'absorbs'
>> those possibly coming out of deuterium on impact of D2O with the target.
>>
>> Then, I would have a doughnut ring of Boron-10 around the point where
>> the charged deuteron collisions takes place --- as a safety measure. Not
>> knowing results, I would be tempted to try the collisions without
>> Boron-10 first.
>>
>> Can calculations be made to see if a charged collision deuteron fusion
>> reaction is possible within realistic experimental parameters? I know
>> next to nothing of such calculations.
>>
>> -ak-
>>
>> > The thermal neutron fission cross-section of Boron 10 is about 5-7
>Orders of Magnitude greater than the D-D reactions. That is why they >use
Boron 10 in safety applications in reactors.
>> >
>> > They used tons of Borax in trying to "cool down" the Chernobyl (sp)
>> > disaster.
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 10:28:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA16620;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:26:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:26:08 -0800
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811191826.KAA21684 swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: ddameron earthlink.net (Unverified)
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: dave dameron <ddameron earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
Resent-Message-ID: <"x07Ze.0.c34.0B6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24797
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi John and all,
At 10:00 PM 11/19/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello, Can anyone please give me help on what wire gauge (magnet wire) I
>would need for 3 amps and use of over an hour and how many turns of said
>wire would be required for the driving potential on 50v to not let more
>than 3 amps flow.

No. 18 AWG gauge would be OK for continuous use, No. 20 may be OK for 1
hour. For 50/3 Ohms, you would require about 1600 feet or 490m, which is 5
lbs or 2.3 kg wire.
Coil geometry (number of layers, surface area, etc.) will influence the
cooling with the 50 volts x 3 amps = 150 watts.
>
>Further can anyone help me on what is used to snub back EMF kicks in
>high frequency systems such as T.V. transformers, I need to get the coil
>to turn of fast as possible (driven at 50v at 3 amps as above).

If you want to turn off the current as fast as possible, you need as high
EMF pulses as possible. di/dt = V/L. Usually high voltage fast recovery
"damper" diodes are used with an equivalent load resistance.
>
>
-Dave

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 10:32:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18818;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <36546408.565D interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:31:36 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz> <3.0.1.32.19981119093115.0078430c@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lVUHm2.0.qb4.DF6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24799
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snip)

> I propose that REPLIES to questions such as John's be made PRIVATELY on
> Vortcor.  If someone besides John wants to hear the replies, that person
> should contact John and say, "Please cc me on all the replies you get to
> your question"...a service that John should be willing to perform since
> he's getting free help from the group.

Yes, Scott, I will go private with John on follow-ups on this thread.
I can see your points about Vortcor-l but, I think we are in danger of
losing the "mass-mind" aspect of vortex-l if we too quickly take such
details (as coil design) off-list.  If noble and generous helpers (as
moi, of course :-) put their foot up their slide rule (class of 57!)
and give bad advice and/or info, the mass-mind of vortex-l can move in
quickly and correct the well-meant error on the helper's part.  I think
on vortex-l we should give these help-requests a short time to sink into
the list before going private.  Soon, it usually becomes obvious just
which interested party(s) should continue with the help advice.
I have often started to try to help someone only to quickly find out
that I should withdraw to the sidelines to let a "real" vortex expert
take over.  And POLITE REQUESTS FROM THE LIST to take a well-worn
detailed thread off-list should be heeded with no hard feelings from
anyone.  Gee, this seems to be the way things worked in the past (with
a few exceptions).

Another hope I have, Scott, is that you would stay subscribed to
vortex-l with some sort of local "dump" for the list SO THAT YOU COULD
POP BACK NOW AND THEN TO INFORM US OF INTERESTING STUFF - without having
to re-subscribe to list just to do that!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 10:32:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18734;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199811191829.MAA24718 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:28:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: More  Humor
Resent-Message-ID: <"n5Isz2.0.Pa4.5F6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24798
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{On the one hand, vortex-l has changed; on the other hand, it is
different. Since I no longer have any idea what is permitted and what
isn't, I am going to assume that the following material is OK. (It comes
from an e-mail I received this morning.) --Mitchell Jones}***

> >
> > KIDS' LITTLE INSTRUCTIONS ON LIFE
> >
> > Never trust a dog to watch your food.
> > Patrick, Age 10
> >
> > When you want something expensive, ask your grandparents.
> > Matthew, Age 12
> >
> > Never smart off to a teacher whose face is twitching.
> > Andrew, Age 9
> >
> > Wear a hat when feeding seagulls.  Rocky, Age 9
> >
> > Sleep in your clothes so you'll be dressed in the morning.
> > Stephanie, Age 8
> >
> > Never try to hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
> > Rosemary, Age 7
> >
> > Don't flush the john when you dad's in the shower.
> > Lamar, Age 10
> >
> > Never ask for anything that costs more than five dollars when
> > your Parents are doing taxes.
> > Carrol, Age 9
> >
> > Never bug a pregnant mom.
> > Nicholas, Age 11
> >
> > Don't ever be too full for dessert.
> > Kelly, Age 10
> >
> > When your dad is mad and asks you, "Do I look stupid?"
> > don't answer him.
> > Heather, Age 16
> >
> > Never tell your mom her diet's not working.
> > Michael, Age 14
> >
> > Don't pick on your sister when she's holding a baseball bat.
> > Joel, Age 12
> >
> > When you get a bad grade in school, show it to your mom
> > when she's on the phone.
> > Alyesha, Age 13
> >
> > Never try to baptize a cat.
> > Laura, Age 13
> >
> > Never spit when on a roller coaster.
> > Scott, Age 11
> >
> > Never do pranks at a police station.
> > Sam, Age 10
> >
> > Beware of cafeteria food when it looks like it's moving.
> > Rob, Age 10
> >
> > Never tell your little brother that you're not going to do what your
> > mom told you to do.
> > Hank, Age 12
> >
> > Remember you're never too old to hold your father's hand.
> > Molly, Age 11
> >
> > Listen to your brain. It has lots of information.
> > Chelsey, Age 7
> >
> > Stay away from prunes.
> > Randy, Age 9
> >
> > Never dare your little brother to paint the family car.
> > Phillip, Age 13
> >
> > Forget the cake, go for the icing.
> > Cynthia, Age 8
> >


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 10:34:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18888;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3654F8FF.7C13 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:07:11 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"S8dBz1.0.1d4.IF6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24800
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Message-ID: <3654250E.5576 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:02:54 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: seti sni.net
Subject: ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.
References: <36539803.13C1 ca-ois.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Seti listserver participants,
 
 I have subscibed to this list for the purpose of obtaining comment on
the
 subject matter contained herein.
 
 While acknowledging that the GeoCities "Paul Dore" SETI hit site was
 faked (to who's benefit?) there remains some nagging questions about
the
 followup effort conducted by the Australian radio astronomer Dr. Ray
Norris.
 
 I participate on the vortex-l listserver where John Winterflood is an
 occasional contributor. Winterflood was formerly associated with the
 Australian Telescope National Facility (ATNF). On Nov 3 he posted the
 following message to the list:
 
> -------------------------------begin clip---------------------------
> 
>     Subject:  Australian CSIRO fails to find SETI signal
> Resent-Date:  Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:36:22 -0800
> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
>        Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:38:25 +0800
>        From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
>    Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>          To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> 
> An update on CSIRO's efforts :-
> 
> >This is just a quickie to let you know that we have used the Australia
> >Telescope Compact Array to look for the claimed signal from EQ Peg, and
> >found nothing, at a sensitivity level about thirty times greater than that
> >of the claimed detection.
> >
> >Details are on
> 
> > http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/eq_peg/
> 
> >Dr. Ray P. Norris
> >Head of Astrophysics and Computing
> >CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility
------------------------------------end
clip------------------------------------
 
 Since I was interested in this subject, I clicked on the website
address
 given.
 
 I was startled to find that the information contained on the site
 disagreed with the information given in the subject line in the above
message. Norris
 did observe a very narrow band signal   1.451 ghz. He spent less than
20 minutes   observing this signal, made no attempt to determine the
modulation mode, if any, and  decided that it was "probably"
"interference" from a "satellite". He even commented   that it might
have been a "secret" gov't satellite since it was one of the
 speculations extant at the time, put forward as an explanation of the
"Dore hit".
 
 The site referred to in the above clip is now blocked from public
 access. I wrote to Dr. Norris asking him for further comment and he did
 reply, but simply said that he would not "waste any more time" on the
 subject.
 
 There are two factors that mitigate against the idea that what Norris
 (and others, apparently) observed was a satellite or terrestrial space
 probe of any kind. These are (1) the very narrow bandwidth ( <600 hz
 wide ), and (2) and high relative field strength against background
 noise ( I have a jpeg graphic of the spectrum analyzer screen dump that
was on the  now inaccessible ATNF site) . Modern satellite technology
uses wide
 band but low field strength "spread spectrum" technology which requires
 recursive processing at the receive end in order to extract data from
 noise.
 
 With all of this in mind , it came to my attention that the "SETI
 League" effort is geared to looking for a wide band signal. Is this
 true?
 
 If so I would like to discuss the merits of assuming a wide band signal
 across interstellar distances with any representative of the SETI group
 who feels knowledgeable. There is apparently a "Dr. Nathan Cohen"
 associated with the SETI league who thinks that a narrow band signal
won't work.
 I see no reason for this. In fact, there are reasons to draw the
opposite conclusion,
 i.e. that wide band signals across such distances would be much more
difficult to 
 detect than narrow band emissions.
 
 I think the very cursory examination of this signal and subsequent
 dismissal as being "interference"  was a disservice to the SETI effort
 in general. While it could be acknowledged that Dr. Norris has other
 priorities for his radio telescope, he could have  at least logged this
one as    unexplained rather than dismissing it completely as he did
after such little time as  was spent on this. This would have had the
effect of spurring further investigation  by  other sites, perhaps even
the SETI league itself.

 I have read that there were "numerous" attempts by menmbers of the SETI
league
 to verify the "Dore" hit. However this one of Dr. Norris' is the only
one I have seen a  report about. Where can one review write-ups of the
reported attempts of others?  
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Jim Ostrowski
 
 PS: Parties interested in where my interests in this arise from are
invited to visit
 
                   http://www.ca-ois.com/jimostr
 
 "Experimental Evidence for an Alternate Theory of Light Propagation"




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 10:47:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26132;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:45:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:45:23 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119134508.00813100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:45:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JC6E62.0.CO6.3T6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24801
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


   Part III  Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" 
===========================

At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Mitchell Swartz asks:
>How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to test
>the temperature?
>
>I never remove fluid from the cell. I remove it from the return hose after
>it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would have to
>turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell. Why
>would I do that?


  More "spinning-on-a-dime" [vide infra].

  1)  When Rothwell first published he stated it was to measure 'flow'.
Now he claims it was to measure 'temperature', proof of outpower, and
to dismiss Bernard instability. 


   Rick Monteverde wrote:
   "There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding
   measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to
   mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get
   entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting
   that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it
   really isn't."
  Rothwell:
    This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, 
    THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out 
    of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a 
    thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.
    Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing 
    HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I compared the temperature of the 
    outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid
    in the reservoir.
   [Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
    Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
    Resent-Message-Id: <"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs" mx2>]


  Which was it?  



  2)  When Rothwell first introduced this matter earlier in the
thread he claimed he took large samples (250 cc) from the cell.  

    MS: "Out of the electrolytic cell?"
    Rothwell:  "I am not sure what this means, 
    but I think the question is: Did I test a
    sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. 
    Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken 
    from the reservoir too, for comparison."
    [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
      Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
      Resent-Message-Id: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]

   Now Rothwell says he did not.    Which is it?
Was it removed or not?  Or is it just conveniently
answered depending upon the day of week?


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


>	How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the
>	temperature?
>
>With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our
>cells, twice a day

    This was discussing the experiment at the Powergen DEMO.  
    Is that not correct?  

    How many times for that?

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



>	So the removal was done to measure flow rate by decoupling flow from
>	the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance to
>	the flow.
>
>Yes, but as I stated previously, in repeated tests with flow meters we show
>that this has no measurable effect on the flow. The change in resistance
>(impedance) is too small to be measured. In any case the test procedure
>would reveal mixing problems, even if it did influence flow rate.


   The change in resistance to flow would be probably measurable
with that type of pump.  At least by a serious flow meter and not a
"stick in the mud"-ad hoc setup ignoring any and all calibration.
 
  Lavoisier could measure the difference in specific heat
between arterial and venous blood (deducing thereafter that
his "acid-former" was reacting with iron).  

 What types of efforts are used today, if all calibration
is avoided?


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


>Swartz: "If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?"
>
>Me: "Yes."
>
>Swartz: "Making it subject to Bernard instability"
>
>I do not see how this could affect the temperature of water in a cup
>outside the system.


    Rothwell claimed [vide supra] that he measured both power output and
Bernard mixing (which he purports was excluded) by a single measurement
of temperature in a "cup outside of the system"  Is that correct?
How was it disproved if Rothwell not states it cannot even "affect(sic)
the temperature of water in a cup outside the system"?    Which is it?


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

>Yesterday, Swartz asked, "Did the flow calorimeter mix its fluids with the
>electrolytic cell?"
>
>I responded, "Apparently it did, because the outlet thermocouple in the
>plumbing did agree with my measurement." That is incorrect. 


   If it is incorrect, why state it?

   Also if the fluids (40cc electrolytic cell) and flow system (??? cc)
either mix or are not.  Apparently?   Which is it.  

  And the outlet thermocouples purported measurement does not indicate
whether it does or not.  Which is it?


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


>	When you measured the temperature of the samples, the above states
>	that you did not remove the fluids from your temperature measuring
>	cup BEFORE each measurement.
>
>I do not understand this statement. How can you measure the temperature in
>the cup after you dump the fluid back into the reservoir?!?


   It is what Rothwell stated:

  Rothwell:
    This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, 
    THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out 
    of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a 
    thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.
   [Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
    Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
    Resent-Message-Id: <"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs" mx2>]

    Which is it?  were they mixed or not?


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


>	The description does not test mixing of any sort.
>
>I do not see how it does not. The temperature would change if the fluid had
>not been previously mixed. If you assert that fluid is not mixed and
>thermal gradients exist, the only way to test that assertion is to mix the
>fluid and see whether the temperature changes.

  "kilowatts", good.  Controls, bad,  right, Jed?

   What possible calibration, or estimate of relative
impact of Bernard instability, could a single point removal
of 250 cc of fluid indicate?   It is not?



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


>	Jed claims that to remove a 1/4 liter had no impact on its removal
>	from the electrolytic cell. 


>I did not remove the fluid from the cell. I removed it from the outlet
>stream so it did not return to the reservoir for few minutes. This affects
>the reservoir water level, not electrolytic cell.


  OK.  Jed states he removed 250 cc from what he states is a 40 cc
electrolytic
cell.  It was removed as it washed over then, taking with it presumably
solute and solvent.  Is this correct?


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




>	The total volume of the electrolytic cell  was =    cc?
>
>40 ml as stated in the report. I do not know how much free space there was
>in between the beads. I would estimate 10 cc. You could figure it out.

   40 ml in the cell.  And 250 cc was removed?

    MS: "Out of the electrolytic cell?"
    Rothwell:  "I am not sure what this means, 
    but I think the question is: Did I test a
    sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. 
    Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken 
    from the reservoir too, for comparison."
    [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
      Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
      Resent-Message-Id: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]

   This does not compute except as stated above.

  Perhaps there were now 10 cc of electrolyte in the
cell.

  Now how much in the entire circuit?
   
 =======================================

>	After the electrolytic and flow samples were taken (~500cc) they
>	were mixed and reinserted. to the electrolytic cell, OR the flow
>	circuit?
>
>They were 250 cc each, not 500 cc. They were not mixed! They were taken at
>different times, of course. Why would I mix them? 

   A good question.  Here is Rothwell stating they WERE
mixed,  at least by HIM, and possibly at least 
externally in his cup:

    "MS: Out of the electrolytic cell?
    Rothwell: I am not sure what this means, but 
    I think the question is: Did I test a
    sample of water from out of the electrolytic 
   cell. Answer: yes, and I tested another sample 
    taken from the reservoir too, for comparison.

     MS: From only one point in the cell, 
     or was it from a single point in a
	stream running through the cell?  
    Rothwell: The entire stream running through the 
   cell is diverted into the cup. ...

     MS: Did the flow calorimeter mix its 
     fluids with the electrolytic cell? 
     Rothwell: Apparently it did, because the outlet 
     thermocouple in the plumbing did
     agree with my measurement. *I* mix the 
     fluid in the cup, by stirring." 
  [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
      Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
      Resent-Message-Id: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]

  Were they mixed together?  


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


>If the flow was measured by uncoupling the circuit, thereby removing
>resistive obstruction to flow, it could not have been  tested in real
>time since the removal was purportedly testing the flow.
>
>With a flowmeter, flow is measured in real-time while Galileo's method is
>used. That's the whole point: to verify flowmeter performance. 

  There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time
in THAT experiment.  

  If there was, please state the type and model number. 

   Which was it?


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


>Swartz: What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic portion of the
>cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?
>
>Rothwell: I have no idea.
>
>Swartz: Then it was a dumb experiment where not even the volume of  surface
>area of the cathode is calculable.
>
>Of course it is calculable! I'm sure CETI calculated it, but I did not. You
>can calculate it if you like. As stated in my report, there were 40
>milliliters of beads. Each bead is 1 mm in diameter. Look up CETI's patents
>to figure out how many milligrams of nickel and palladium are in each bead.

  It is either a resolvable "idea" by the experimenter, or
it is not.    Which is it?

  Such calculation is the most fundamental calculation 
for reasonableness.  Anyone can collect data. 
It make some travail and wisdom to separate the signal
from the noise, and to turn data into information. 


 This is a good start towards constructive matters.

      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 11:06:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01813;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3654F8C6.6915 ca-ois.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:06:14 -0800
From: Jim Ostrowski <jimostr ca-ois.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"OFPgI2.0.BS.Oi6Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24802
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Received: from mcfs.whowhere.com [209.1.236.44] by ca-ois.com
  (SMTPD32-4.03) id AAD7CAE5027A; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:13:11 PST
Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by shared1-mail.whowhere.com; Wed Nov 18 20:11:17 1998
To: seti sni.net, "Jim Ostrowski" <jimostr@ca-ois.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:11:17 -0700
From: "Dr. H. Paul Shuch" <drseti eudoramail.com>
Message-ID: <NGMBGHGDLPEJAAAA shared1-mail.whowhere.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: rcf setileague.org, n6tx@setileague.org
X-Sent-Mail: off
Reply-To: 
X-Mailer: MailCity Service
Subject: Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.
X-Sender-Ip: 208.232.75.45
Organization: QUALCOMM Eudora Web-Mail  (http://www.eudoramail.com:80) 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SETIzens,
     I have refrained (and will continue to refrain) from non-productive discussions of alleged signals which cannot be verified, or which have not been subject to The SETI League's rigorous verification protocols.  However, the questions raised in the re
ferenced email deal with verification procedures, hence appear worthy of a considered response.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:02:54   Jim Ostrowski wrote:

>He spent less than
>20 minutes   observing this signal, 

With research grade radio telescope time costing upwards of $4000 per day for the instrument alone, that 20 minutes wasted about $55 US (not counting the salaries of the engineers, scientists and technicians who did the measurement).  20 minutes of observ
ing time is a loxury, an *eternity* in radio astronomy.  The average SETI League telescope observes a given piece of sky for around 12 minutes, maximum.  I think Dr. Norris gave the allegations rather more time than they deserved.

>made no attempt to determine the
>modulation mode, if any, 

The equipment used at ATNF for continuum radio astronomy is *incapable* of being used to determine modulation mode.  It is intended for total-power, not spectral, measurements.

>Modern satellite technology
>uses wide
> band but low field strength "spread spectrum" technology which requires
> recursive processing at the receive end in order to extract data from
> noise.

That's true of *some* (but not *all*) modern satellite systems.

> With all of this in mind , it came to my attention that the "SETI
> League" effort is geared to looking for a wide band signal. Is this
> true?

No, it is not.  We look specifically for narrow-band events.  See the extensive technical information on our website.

>There is apparently a "Dr. Nathan Cohen"
> associated with the SETI league who thinks that a narrow band signal
>won't work.

Dr. Cohen is not associated with The SETI League, although he has expressed interest in joining our non-profit organization (as can you, or anybody).  He has not to my knowledge said that narrow band signals *won't work* (of course they will), but rather 
that no extra-terrestrial civilizations would employ them.  However, I respectfully disagree with this assertion.

> I have read that there were "numerous" attempts by menmbers of the SETI
>league
> to verify the "Dore" hit. 
>Where can one review write-ups of the
>reported attempts of others?  

The SETI League routinely investigates many actual signals.  These are thoroughly documented on our website's "What We've Heard So Far" page.  The EQ Pegasi Hoax, however, was NOT a signal.  There was NOTHING there to report!  We don't ask our members to 
waste their valuable time writing reports each time they don't hear anything.  It's bad enough that so many of them wasted their time looking for what turned out to be a totally fraudulent claim, from a hoaxter.

I am pleased that this list appears to be returning to its intended function, which is the discussion of extra-solar electromagnetic signal detection techniques.  I will be happy to answer (as my time permits) queries about the art and science of SETI.  I
 will neither read nor answer emails dealing with conspiracy theories or accusations of complicity in supposed cover-ups.  That's just not what we're here for.  And I thank those SETI supporters who have remained silent, waiting for reason to prevail over
 emotion. 

---
Dr. H. Paul Shuch, Executive Director, The SETI League, Inc.
433 Liberty Street, PO Box 555, Little Ferry NJ 07643
phone (201)641-1770; fax (201)641-1771; URL http://www.setileague.org/
--->  PLEASE REPLY TO: paul setileague.org  <---


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 11:37:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12722;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:35:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:35:02 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119143339.0069d5d0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:33:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119134508.00813100 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA12685
Resent-Message-ID: <"qGkoS3.0.h63.cB7Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24803
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

M. Swartz writes:

 2)  When Rothwell first introduced this matter earlier in the
thread he claimed he took large samples (250 cc) from the cell.  

    MS: "Out of the electrolytic cell?"
    Rothwell:  "I am not sure what this means, 
    but I think the question is: Did I test a
    sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. 
    Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken 
    from the reservoir too, for comparison."
    [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
      Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
      Resent-Message-Id: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]

   Now Rothwell says he did not.    Which is it?
Was it removed or not?  Or is it just conveniently
answered depending upon the day of week?


Sigh . . . Look, Mitch, what I do is really, REALLY simple. You can call it
what you like � taking the water from the cell or not taking it � but try
to envision what I do, and then draw your own conclusions. PLEASE try to
figure this out for yourself:

1. The water is continually flowing from reservoir to cell and back to the
reservoir.

2. Every 15 seconds, 250 ml of water comes through the cell. I do not know
how much fits in there at one time; probably around 10 ml, because the
beads take up most of the space.

3. The water rushes back down the tubes at the rate of 10 meters of tube
per minute, and splashes into the reservoir.

4. Periodicially, I divert or intercept the water. Instead of letting it
fall back into the reservoir, I move the hose so that it falls into a
measuring cup instead, for 15 seconds.  (By "cup" I mean a graduated
cylinder.) This has no effect on the system because the pump cannot tell
whether the water is falling into a cup or the reservoir. The impedance is
exactly the same, as far as I can measure.

5. The water I collect in the cup exited the cell only a moment before, so
it is still at exactly the same temperature as the water at the cell
outlet. I stir the water and measure the temperature. It comes out exactly
the same as the outlet thermocouple, in every case. There is not 0.1 deg C
difference, which is the limit of precision with my instruments.

6. The 250 ml may represent 25 times the capacity or the cell, or 10 times.
I have no idea. I do not think this matters. You could do some geometry and
figure out how much space the beads take up if you like.


>With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our
>cells, twice a day

    This was discussing the experiment at the Powergen DEMO.  
    Is that not correct?  

    How many times for that?

Yes, the Powergen Demo. I measured it about a dozen times over three days.



	The change in resistance to flow would be probably measurable with
	that type of pump.  At least by a serious flow meter and not a "stick
	in the mud"-ad hoc setup ignoring any and all calibration.

No, that is incorrect. When we used good flowmeters we saw no measurable
change with that or any other type of pump. It would take far more
sensitive equipment than Cravens or I can afford to detect the minute
changes in impedance that occur when you shift a hose from a reservoir to a
cup.


	What types of efforts are used today, if all calibration is avoided?

Cravens, Tinsley and I do extensive calibrations of all types, lasting
months. However, we did not have time during the three-day Power Gen demo.
That's a shame but there is nothing I can do about it. You'll have to take
or leave it.


	Rothwell claimed [vide supra] that he measured both power output and
	Bernard mixing (which he purports was excluded) by a single measurement
	of temperature in a "cup outside of the system"  Is that correct?

You cannot establish power with a single measurment. You have to compare
the temperature of the water in the cup (outlet) to the temperature in the
reservoir (inlet).

As for the Bernard mixing problem, you are the expert. *You* tell *us*
whether I eliminated it by putting the water in a cup and stirring it. If I
did not, please explain why not and what other steps I should have taken
once the water sloshed into the cup. What steps did I miss? How did the
water remain unmixed? How can I possibly mix it, if stirring will not do
the job?


I mentioned that I do not actually know how well the fluid mixes in the
cell, because it is mixed again by a static in-line mixer. Swart takes that
out of context and asks:

	If it is incorrect, why state it?

I wanted to clarify the issue exactly.


	Also if the fluids (40cc electrolytic cell) and flow system (??? cc)
	either mix or are not.  Apparently?   Which is it.  

How can I tell? Once the water passes through the in-line mixer at 1 liter
per minute, it is definitely mixed, according to the Omega catalog from
which Cravens selected the component. It may or may not have been mixed
coming out of the cell, but by the time it reaches the thermocouple in the
tube it is definitely mixed, and it mixes again when it pours into my cup,
and I stir it to mix it yet again before I measure the temperature. It is
impossible for me to say how precisely well-mixed it was several
centimeters upstream at the spot where it exited the cell.

In point of fact, McKubre did an extensive study of the CETI cells, and
found they are ideal mixers, and many commercial mixing systems run the
fluid through a similar bed of beads, so I think there is no question that
it was well mixed as it passed through the cell.


	And the outlet thermocouples purported measurement does not indicate
	whether it does or not.  Which is it?

The outlet thermocouple agrees with the temperature in the cup exactly, so
I am 100% certain that that it measures the correct, mixed water
temperature. I do not see you can debate or doubt the issue, or fail to
understand the procedure -- which could not be simpler or more direct. If
the measurement is wrong it has magically fooled two thermocouples, two
thermistors, a thermometer, and the Omega catalog section on static mixer
specifications needs to be rewritten two. I think that scenario is
impossible by many orders of magnitude. I do not understand what you think.
Please do not try to explain it to me! If you have any other questions
about the proceedure I would be happy to answer them.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 11:53:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA18995;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:48:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:48:35 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119133047.0078fc00 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:30:47 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
In-Reply-To: <36546408.565D interlaced.net>
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119093115.0078430c mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JiF871.0.ee4.JO7Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24804
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 13:31 11/19/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Yes, Scott, I will go private with John on follow-ups on this thread.

Not unless you just want to, Frank.  That kind of discussion is just fine
for Vortex-L....MUCH more useful and on-topic than most of the stuff here.

>I can see your points about Vortcor-l but, I think we are in danger of
>losing the "mass-mind" aspect of vortex-l if we too quickly take such
>details (as coil design) off-list.

I agree totally.  I think Vortex-L is a good thing just like it is.

>Another hope I have, Scott, is that you would stay subscribed to
>vortex-l with some sort of local "dump" for the list SO THAT YOU COULD
>POP BACK NOW AND THEN TO INFORM US OF INTERESTING STUFF - without having
>to re-subscribe to list just to do that!

As I understand it, right now, every Vortex-L subscriber is also subscribed
to vortcor-list.  If things go the way I'm hoping, that means you Vortexans
will soon be getting an average of 31 or 32 messages per day instead of 30
messages per day.  You will therefore always know EVERYTHING that is
happening on vortcor-list.  When something interesting gets posted to
vortcor-list, we might see a rather reserved, concise discussion on
vortcor-list paralleled by the more verbose and argumentative discussion
typical of Vortex.  If the Vortex discussion comes up with something
important that has been missed by the vortcor denizens, then I have no
doubt that some well-behaved Vortexan will make a concise contribution of
it to vortcor-list.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 12:04:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24749;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:02:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:02:17 -0800
Message-ID: <01af01be13f6$ec1f2820$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:56:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"jYv0g3.0.R26.7b7Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24805
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please Help!]

Scott Little wrote:

Some snipping.


>At 13:31 11/19/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>
>>Yes, Scott, I will go private with John on follow-ups on this thread.
>
>Not unless you just want to, Frank.  That kind of discussion is just fine
>for Vortex-L....MUCH more useful and on-topic than most of the stuff here.
>
>I agree totally.  I think Vortex-L is a good thing just like it is.

Glad to hear that. Thought for a moment that
"Chicken Little" was getting a Little Chicken-Shit.   :-)

Regards,   Frederick



>
>
>Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
>Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
>512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 12:28:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA00087;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:26:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:26:50 -0800
Message-ID: <01c001be13fa$5ca63220$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:21:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"D7hzb1.0.H1.Ay7Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24806
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III

Jed wrote:
>
>1. The water is continually flowing from reservoir to cell and back to the
>reservoir.

Jed,is any of this loop open enough that atmospheric Air/O2 can get into the
electrolyte?

If it isit can react at the cathode:

1, 2 K+ or 2 Li+ + 2 e- ---> 2 K or 2 Li

2, 2 K + O2 --->  2 K2O2 or 2 Li + 1/2 O2 ---> Li2O

3, 2 K2O2 + 2 H2O ---> 4 KOH + O2 + ENERGY

4, In Recombiner: 2 H2 + O2 ---> 2 H2O + ENERGY

Net Result: Fictitious Over-Unity Heat.

Regards,  Frederick
>
>- Jed
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 14:30:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15657;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:24:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:24:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119172321.0068e0cc pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:23:21 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y_IcS2.0.Nq3.lg9Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24807
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com  "Frederick J Sparber"
<fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III

Fred Sparber asks:

	Jed,is any of this loop open enough that atmospheric Air/O2 can get
	into the electrolyte?

Yeah, it has to be, to let out the O2 and H2 gas from electrolysis. Plus
you take the top off the reservoir to pour in the 250 ml sample.


	If it is it can react at the cathode:

	1, 2 K+ or 2 Li+ + 2 e- ---> 2 K or 2 Li

	. . .

	4, In Recombiner: 2 H2 + O2 ---> 2 H2O + ENERGY

Well there's no recombiner. You don't have a recombiner with an open cell
-- no point to that!


	Net Result: Fictitious Over-Unity Heat.

Don't you mean chemical heat? I think it would run out of fuel pretty
quickly. This cell generated 300 to 600 watts excess for over a month.
There was no external energy to keep your reaction going if that's what
you're thinking.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 15:19:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14526;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:15:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:15:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130304b27a533d0c67 [12.64.4.16]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119143339.0069d5d0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119134508.00813100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:08:52 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"3CJov1.0.pY3.TQALs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24808
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed -

I hope you will forgive me if I've forgotten details that were already
posted here or published in I.E. Dumb questions to follow:

In the Powergen CETI demo, was the electrolyte volume going through the
actual beads separate from the water being pumped to and from the
resorvoir, or was that all one and the same?

What were the total volumes of the fluids in the whole system? IOW, I want
to know what percentage of the whole volume the 200+cc or so in your
measuring cup represented.

Also, when you lifted the outfall end of the cell output tube from the
resorvoir to fill your measuring cup, did you hold the outfall at a
substantially different height level during this operation, or did you keep
it at a level close to or identical with the former surface level of the
resorvoir?

Was the pump on the cell input side or the cell output side of the resorvoir?

At any time during your lifting the tube out to fill the cup, did air go
down the tube to the pump - IOW, did the pump impeller ever get exposed to
air or suffer any similar disruption while you drew your sample and made
your measurement?

Thanks, and again - sorry for re-re-asking what has already been stated.
Just this one more time for clarification.


- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 16:27:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32752;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:24:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:24:04 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
In-Reply-To: <l03130304b27a533d0c67 [12.64.4.16]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119143339.0069d5d0 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119134508.00813100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:19:57 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"d-CAC3.0.g_7.aQBLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24809
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed -

I wrote:

   >  In the Powergen CETI demo, was the electrolyte volume
   >  going through the actual beads separate from the water
   >  being pumped to and from the resorvoir, or was that all
   >  one and the same?

>From your article in IEvol_1#5&6, I see that it's one
and the same.

   >  What were the total volumes of the fluids in the whole
   >  system? IOW, I want to know what percentage of the
   >  whole volume the 200+cc or so in your measuring cup
   >  represented.

I could not find this in the article. Wild guess based on the photos: 1000cc?

   > Was the pump on the cell input side or
   > the cell output side of the resorvoir?

The pump is submerged in the reservoir, and seems to be at the very bottom
under the filter in the photos. It looks like the cell output line goes in
the top of the resorvoir container and goes through the 2.5 meters of
coiled area top. Is that air in there in the upper 'half', or heat
exchanger section, of the reservoir? Can't tell for sure from the photo,
but I'm assume it's air. I see what look like air intake holes around the
side near midway up the upper portion. Also, the filter looks like it's
being "split" by diffraction in the photos on both page 19 and page 21. I
guess that's the fluid level, right?

Is that a tube connector mounted in the top where the line goes into the
heat exchange section? Then that's where you pulled it off to fill the
measuring cup?

I'm still trying to see what Mitchell is getting at. I guess you could get
a one shot overheating episode due to some effect occuring when the flow
rate suddenly drops below it's average value. But that should disappear
over time if the flow is steady, and I can't comprehend how it could
persist in the teeth of a 250cc/minute flow rate over time. Or as Jed says
in the article:

 "To account for the the  8 to 17 deg Delta T the pipes
 would have to be stopped up almost completely, allowing
 no more than a few drops through every minute. In that
 case, when we dumped out 250 ml samples, cold water
 would have covered the outlet thermocouples, the delta T
 would have dropped to zero immediately, and it would
 have taken 10 or 20 minutes to recover. That did not
 happen."

I take this to mean that even if in the cell area there is Barnard
instability or some other tricky effect conspiring to put a stream of
overheated water next to (or completely in place of) an area of cooler
water in the output tube, this false read would wash out over time due to
the robust method of FLOW calorimetry. It seems clear to me from Jed's
descriptions that measurements were taken over such time intervals that any
such effect would be neutralized over the sum of the intervals. If that
continuous process, or some essential part of that process did not in fact
take place, I wish Mitchell or someone would explain it to me in terms even
I can understand. He seems to be on to something, so maybe I'm just not
getting it in the context of this type of calorimetry. Somebody please tell
me what's going on here, if not a kilowatt or so of excess heat?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 16:34:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28520;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811200029.TAA04103 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:28:33 -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: <"wBcif2.0.Yz6.ZXBLs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24810
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Does north GA water have appreciable concentrations of copper oxide, and
how soluble is it?

Ed Wall

NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 16:48:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07458;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:46:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:46:08 -0800
Message-Id: <3654BBF0.5C574EDE verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:46:40 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Superluminal medium
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1bPSB3.0.Sq1.GlBLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24811
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

(I moved the below note to the beginning from the end for who dont really interested on superluminality issues)

Note: I believe every scientific discussion between vortex people is very worthy. Actually vortex is not simply a forum for discuss specific issues but a ship carrying a community having similar perspective. Minds are important, secondary the issues, I th
ink. Diversity of ideas is very important to complement the whole picture, etc. ...

- - -

Stayed far about the issue for sometime, I dont know is this issue is discussed previously:

I think the vacuum itself is may not enough to signal propagate on superluminal speed, but an already established environment is required.

For example electromagnetic wave itself may satisfy this requirement. A resonant cavity like an electromagnetic wave reflecting between two mirrors, a mirror ended fiberoptic guide (having standing waves), or a long resonating coil (from my research) may 
satisfy such a superluminal medium.

This solution is compatible with cosmic arguments, because limited speed of light actually protect locality and prevent events propagate too fast one space to an other, which a remote large energy unbalance will propagate instantly or too fast to everywhe
re of the universe disturbing local conditions, for example conditions for evolving the life. For example catastrophic events on star and galaxy scales are rare, but if one consider a large volume of the universe containing billion of galaxies, we may ver
y often encounter such events. So an over interconnected universe by superluminal speeds may prevent isolation, not allowing creation of local special conditions and diversity required for the life evolve. Instead it force homogenization.

But, if the superluminal propagation of events and signals are only possible under a medium established before, such a condition natural or artificial need to prepared at least at speed of the light, and locality  is not destroyed.  For example a carrier 
signal (like the one detected from ATNF) could be actually an ET carrier for a superluminal communication. Ok, this could be minor possibility, but this idea may help to build some experimental setup.

My interest is resonance on long coils, for example a coil of 17 mm diameter and 50 cm long could resonate and carry energy on end to the other without significant losses on 2-30 MHz range. An experiment may consist to change the impedance of the coil at 
one end, thus affect the resonance frequency, and see the result on the other end of the coil. on which speed the disturbance will propagate one end to the other?


Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 17:05:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12348;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981119200904.00bc5190 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:09:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"X1DXK2.0.n03.Q-BLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24812
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi.

What is the magnitude of this effect? Also, what oxide of cu?

K.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 17:46:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24926;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:44:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:44:32 -0800
Message-ID: <3654C9D2.36BC skylink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:45:54 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: jjkrmk swbell.net
Subject: Another Paper From Cartan Website
References: <3.0.32.19981111230815.00b78350 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mPqv53.0.O56.0cCLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24813
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carhomep.htm
> Is this guy hip or what? 
> Check out the PDF download area, especially.

Re: Another paper from the Cartan Website.
"Electromagnetic Waves in the Vacuum with Torsion and Spin", 
By R.M. Kiehn

In this paper, Kiehn presents the idea of a four-vector for
spin current, as well as a four-vector representation 
of torsion current (equations 2.1 and 2.2). These 
are fascinating, and may provide a link between EM and 
gravitation. The scalar component of Kiehn's spin current 
four-vector is spin density. Spin density is identical 
with the gravitomagnetic field vector. 

None the less, it seems to me, there are some problems
with the four-vector representation of spin current.

Spin is a vector. As such, spin current flow density
must be represented by a nine element tensor, rather 
than as a three element vector (not a single 
four-vector comprised of spin flow density, and 
the scalar spin volume density}. It is possible to
write spin current in a four-vector representation, 
but it takes three different four-vectors -- one 
four-vector for each spatial dimension. In which case,
the vector components of each of the these is a 
column of the spin current tensor. 

In the case of linear momentum, something similar has been
done by Herrmann and Schmid [1]. In the case of linear 
momentum, the momentum current tensor is the same as what
is more commonly known as the stress-energy tensor. A
similar tensor must exist for spin. I don't know exactly
what it looks like, but it should look similar to Kiehn's
representation, but expanded to three spatial dimensions.
One dimension for each component of the spin density
vector. 

Also it occurs to me, that aside from the single 
spatial representation, there may be two other
problems with Kiehn's spin current vector representation. 
Fortunately, or not, these two problems seem to balance 
each other in order to result in a correct expression
for the divergence of the spin current -- to yield the
first Poincare invariant.

Spin is a vector quantity. The spin current four
vector represents flow of a vector quantity. While 
the traditional four-vector consists of three vectors 
and a scalar, the "scalar" compononent of the spin-
current four vector, must necessarily be a vector. 
In Kiehn's reprsentation it is a true scalar (A)dot(D).
To further see this problem, Kiehn's integral for 
total spin (equation 2.6), which must be a vector, 
contains a volume integral over the "scalar" component 
of the spin-current (sigma). This integral must yield 
a vector result, and sigma must be a vector. Kiehn's 
representation of sigma is a scalar quantity. 

An expression for local angular momentum in the EM field
has been derived by Ohanian [2]. Ohanian breaks the 
definition of angular momentum in the EM field into 
two parts (starting with the volume of integral of 
the Poynting vector). One part is related to orbital 
angular momentum, and the other part is local angular 
momentum -- angular momentum which is attached to the
wavelet or particle (spin density). Ohanian derives 
spin density to be equal to (A)cross(D). Not A(dot)D. 

Use of (A)cross(D), rather than (A)dot(D) as the
"scalar" part of Kiehn's spin current four vector is
dimensionally correct (angular momentum per cubic
meter) and is also vectorially correct. It is also 
the correct expression as derived by Ohanian. Note
also that a tensor representation of spin current,
results in three different four-vectors -- one for
each spatial dimension, and the "scalar" part of
the four vector is mathematically a true scalar --
a single direction vector. When represented in this
fashion, the "scalar" part of the four-vector is a 
single-dimension vector, which has the appearance 
of a dot product -- e.g. spin density in the x 
direction = (Az)dot(Dy) - (Ay)dot(Dz).

But, if the expression (AxD) is substituted for 
(AdotD) in Kiehn's spin current vector, the divergence 
of the spin current will no longer yield the proper 
expression for the Poincare invariant. 
      
Another possible problem with Kiehn's representation 
of the spin current may be the "vector" component
(in this case vector flow component) related
to (D)(Phi). This representation suggests that spin
current can exist in the abscence of any magnetic 
field components -- i.e. a non-zero value of spin
flow density exists in a solely electrostatic field. 
Maybe this is not such a problem, since in the abscence
of sources the divergence of (D)(Phi) is always zero,
and there can be no net contribution from this term 
to a time rate of change of spin density. Still it
troubles me that you can get angular momentum current
in a purely electrostatic field. 

An alternative expression for the spin current vector 
could be derived if we choose to represent the potentials 
of the EM field with two vector potentials rather than 
a scalar potential and a single vector potential -- i.e 
use the the electric vector potential (Ae) rather than 
the electric scalar potential (Phi). In which case, Kiehn's 
representation for the spin current four-vector would look 
something like this:

S4 = [Am(x)H - Ae(x)E, Am(x)D - Ae(x)B] = [S,sigma]

The divergence of the "vector" components of S4 yields
something similar to the first Poincare invariant:

div("vector" parts of S4) = (B.H - D.E) - Am.Je + Ae.Jm

Note that in the above expression the electric and 
magnetic current densities Je and Jm, consist soley 
of the source free displacement currents (dD/dt and 
dB/dt).

Kiehn's torsion current vector, related to magnetic helicity, 
is also interesting. What is the physical interpretation of 
this? Also, must there not necessarily be another similar
torsion current vector related to electrical helicity?

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

References:
1.) Momentum Flow in the Electromagnetic Field, F. Herrmann
and G. Bruno Schmid, American Journal of Physics, Vol 53 (5),
May 1985, pp 415-420

2.) What is Spin?, Hans C. Ohanian, American Journal of Physics,
Vol 54 (6), June 1986, pp 500-505

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 17:57:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29135;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:55:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:55:06 -0800
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:47:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NBwlf.0.477.wlCLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24814
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Jed -
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>    >  In the Powergen CETI demo, was the electrolyte volume
>    >  going through the actual beads separate from the water
>    >  being pumped to and from the resorvoir, or was that all
>    >  one and the same?
> 
> >From your article in IEvol_1#5&6, I see that it's one
> and the same.
> 
-------------
> 
!!!!> The pump is submerged in the reservoir,!!!! and seems to be at the 
very bottom > under the filter in the photos.


	How much heat from the pump and pump motor???


----------------
> me what's going on here, if not a kilowatt or so of excess heat?
> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:02:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31400;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:00:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:00:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3654CD34.2DE8 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:00:21 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sT5lg2.0.Qg7.cqCLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24815
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
      Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:27:09 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
 
> Subject:  Re: CF debate, band state theory
>   Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:35 -0400 (EDT)
>   From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
> 
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net
> 
>      To: Scott Chubb
> 
>      Dr. Chubb,

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms
> 
>      I have been paying some attention to the discussion between you and
>      Dick Blue, with participation by Ed Storms, and I have a couple of
>      questions for you if you don't mind.
> 
>      It seems to me that the picture of CF you paint is quite different
>      from that presented by Ed Storms.  In particular, Ed uses
> the concept of 'special states of matter' that are present at
> very low levels in relation to the bulk, and thus are very hard to
> detect.He also supports the idea that these 'clusters' (my term)
> occur primarily on the surface.

Your understanding of my views is correct but not quite complete.  The
'special states of matter' require a very high deuterium concentration
to form.  This high concentration only exists near the surface. The
depth of the high concentration region will depend on the nature of the
palladium and the rate at which deuterium is being applied to the
sample. The region has depth and will have bulk properties. The area of
the active region will depend on the frequency of surface penetrating
cracks.  Some active regions many be only a few square microns while
other areas might be a few square millimeters.  This view in no way
conflicts with the Chubb model.  The scale on which the model is applied
is variable but the model is unchanged.

Ed Storms

Subject: Re: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
      Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:34:00 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
 
> Subject: Re: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
>   Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:14:55 -0500 (EST)
>   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:    rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Once again Kirk Shanahan has picked up on something very significant,
> I believe, to this discussion.  That is the clear divergence between
> the picture presented by Scott Chubb and what Ed Storms is now
> indicating as his view of CANR.
> 
> If you believe that the process is cold fusion initiated by some
> form of quantum coherance appropriate to the conditions of a
> perfect lattice at T=0, that is what Scott Chubb has been considering.
> Of course, the experimentalists have been at work gathering evidence
> which tends to call much of Chubb theory into question.  Thus as
> Ed Storms attempts to synthesize something from the divergent
> results from a variety of experiments what he has come up with
> has less and less connection to the Chubb picture.  Storms is
> now suggesting something akin to a (d, alpha) reaction involving
> a yet to be specified "impurity" with the cathode surface
> conditions playing, it seems, a more significant role than the
> bulk material.  Those surface conditions simply are not addressed
> by anything in the Chubb theory; and, I should think, all prospects
> for having lattice symmetries dictate the outcome of reaction
> process fly out the window.
> 
> It now seems that neither Chubb nor Storms can gain much comfort
> from what the other has to say on this subject.

Once again Dick Blue justifies his rejection of the phenomenon by
misinterpreting the views of the advocates. Dick should read my recent
reply to Kirk and to him before commenting further.  

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:04:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32412;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:01:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:01:17 -0800
Message-ID: <021d01be1429$1797edc0$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:57:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"h3U2x1.0.Lw7.irCLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24816
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall asks about copper from water in North Ga.

The CuOx ingredients in North GA Ground-Water
can be found on CD ROMs put out by the US Geological Survey www.usgs.gov
they are stingy
though and you have to buy them.They list something like 122 "ingredients"
taken from Ground-Water Sources.

Quite possible that certain types of water can take CuOx off the copper
plumbing too.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:17:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA04871;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:15:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:15:55 -0800
Message-ID: <023d01be142b$1ef255e0$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standards.h
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:11:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01BE13F0.65B6A520"
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: <"FGEeH.0.0C1.R3DLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24817
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BE13F0.65B6A520
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

EPA; Water Quality Links. Do they still use Copper Sulfate as a pesticide in
North GA?

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standards.html

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BE13F0.65B6A520
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standards.html
Modified=80748DA72A14BE0125

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BE13F0.65B6A520--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:28:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09210;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:26:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:26:34 -0800
Message-ID: <3654FD88.3840 bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:26:32 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)
References: <199811200029.TAA04103 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mzdli1.0.mF2.PDDLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24818
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> 
> Does north GA water have appreciable concentrations of copper oxide, and
> how soluble is it?
> 
> Ed Wall
> 
> NERL

There is a copper mine north of Cumming on the border with TN.  The town
of Copper Hill stradles the state line.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:46:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA14011;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:43:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:43:57 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
References: <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:40:20 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nf5bN3.0.lQ3.fTDLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24819
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John -

  > How much heat from the pump and pump motor???

85 watts total, including the cell, motor, heat exchanger fan, etc. Pump
alone, I don't know. Electrolysis unit alone was reportedly rated 5.5W, but
the power reported was 1.4 watts.

For the temperature readings to be unreflective of the true temperature of
the electrolyte flowing through this system, there had to be either or both
of an error in:

 * cell input temperature due to stratified flows (falsely colder than in
reality)

 * cell output temperature due to stratified flows (falsely hotter than in
reality)

Jed reported that the probes were matched with mixers in the lines
somewhow, but I don't know the details.

If the pump motor was adding a hot stream into the cell input line, then
that would make the apparent heat excess smaller, not larger. It must
somehow produce a cold flow on the input temperature probe (or a hot flow
on the output probe) to make it look like more heat was being produced than
there really was. I'm still unclear on exactly where these thermometers and
probes are located in the device, or of those locations make them prone to
the kinds of errors Mitchell contemplates despite the mixers.

Bad flow rate measurement would skew everything, of course. That's also why
they did the cup measurements - to check the flow rate when there was no
flow meter because the only meter they had was too small to measure the
high flow rate of the demo unit. The rate would have changed during those
tests if they either dropped the fluid level on the pump below the impeller
take-up, or of they held the outfall of the output tube during that time at
a different height than its normal one inside the resorvoir assembly.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:48:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA15061;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:45:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:45:45 -0800
Message-ID: <025401be142f$44c78f20$67bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:41:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"LKQk93.0.Dh3.NVDLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24820
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Stirred_and_Shaken.txt (fwd)

Terry wrote:


>Ed Wall wrote:
>>
>> Does north GA water have appreciable concentrations of copper oxide, and
>> how soluble is it?
>>
>> Ed Wall
>>
>> NERL
>
>There is a copper mine north of Cumming on the border with TN.  The town
>of Copper Hill stradles the state line.

There you go, Terry.

Copper-Heads and Rednecks, makes sort of a
Bordeax Mixture (lime, copper sulphate, and water)a fungicide, great for
athlete's foot or
grapevine,apple orchard, and potato crops. :-)

Regards,   Frederick


>
>Terry
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 18:53:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17475;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:51:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:51:03 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:52:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1du8o1.0.zG4.MaDLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24821
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  At 04:40 PM 11/19/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>For the temperature readings to be unreflective of the true temperature of
>the electrolyte flowing through this system, there had to be either or both
>of an error in:
> * cell input temperature due to stratified flows (falsely colder than in
>reality)
> * cell output temperature due to stratified flows (falsely hotter than in
>reality)

  Stratifications, Bernard instability, and errors of thermometry
and errors of calorimetry are four different things.  
 They are being mixed up in this post along with other issues.

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

>Jed reported that the probes were matched with mixers in the lines
>somewhow, but I don't know the details.

   Perhaps THIS is why.
 
 ================================================

>If the pump motor was adding a hot stream into the cell input line, then
>that would make the apparent heat excess smaller, not larger. It must
>somehow produce a cold flow on the input temperature probe (or a hot flow
>on the output probe) to make it look like more heat was being produced than
>there really was. I'm still unclear on exactly where these thermometers and
>probes are located in the device, or of those locations make them prone to
>the kinds of errors Mitchell contemplates despite the mixers.

  Have you read the relevant papers, and down-loaded the excerpt?
It is not clear from the mixing up of issues and matters.

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


>Bad flow rate measurement would skew everything, of course. 

  This is yet another issue.

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


>That's also why
>they did the cup measurements - to check the flow rate when there was no
>flow meter because the only meter they had was too small to measure the
>high flow rate of the demo unit.

  You had better read up about flow as a function resistance to
flow for non-piston drive pumps.

     Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 19:00:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20624;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:55:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:55:51 -0800
Message-ID: <3654DC11.70498A11 fc.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:03:46 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields fc.net>
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: More  Humor
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199811191829.MAA24718 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tq4yw3.0.625.seDLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24822
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{On the one hand, vortex-l has changed; on the other hand, it
> is
> different. Since I no longer have any idea what is permitted and
> what
> isn't, I am going to assume that the following material is OK. (It
> comes
> from an e-mail I received this morning.) --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > >
> > > KIDS' LITTLE INSTRUCTIONS ON LIFE
> > >
> > > Never trust a dog to watch your food.
> > > Patrick, Age 10
> > >
> > > When you want something expensive, ask your grandparents.
> > > Matthew, Age 12
> > >
> > > Never smart off to a teacher whose face is twitching.
> > > Andrew, Age 9
> > >
> > > Wear a hat when feeding seagulls.  Rocky, Age 9
> > >
> > > Sleep in your clothes so you'll be dressed in the morning.
> > > Stephanie, Age 8
> > >
> > > Never try to hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
> > > Rosemary, Age 7
> > >
> > > Don't flush the john when you dad's in the shower.
> > > Lamar, Age 10
> > >
> > > Never ask for anything that costs more than five dollars when
> > > your Parents are doing taxes.
> > > Carrol, Age 9
> > >
> > > Never bug a pregnant mom.
> > > Nicholas, Age 11
> > >
> > > Don't ever be too full for dessert.
> > > Kelly, Age 10
> > >
> > > When your dad is mad and asks you, "Do I look stupid?"
> > > don't answer him.
> > > Heather, Age 16
> > >
> > > Never tell your mom her diet's not working.
> > > Michael, Age 14
> > >
> > > Don't pick on your sister when she's holding a baseball bat.
> > > Joel, Age 12
> > >
> > > When you get a bad grade in school, show it to your mom
> > > when she's on the phone.
> > > Alyesha, Age 13
> > >
> > > Never try to baptize a cat.
> > > Laura, Age 13
> > >
> > > Never spit when on a roller coaster.
> > > Scott, Age 11
> > >
> > > Never do pranks at a police station.
> > > Sam, Age 10
> > >
> > > Beware of cafeteria food when it looks like it's moving.
> > > Rob, Age 10
> > >
> > > Never tell your little brother that you're not going to do
> what your
> > > mom told you to do.
> > > Hank, Age 12
> > >
> > > Remember you're never too old to hold your father's hand.
> > > Molly, Age 11
> > >
> > > Listen to your brain. It has lots of information.
> > > Chelsey, Age 7
> > >
> > > Stay away from prunes.
> > > Randy, Age 9
> > >
> > > Never dare your little brother to paint the family car.
> > > Phillip, Age 13
> > >
> > > Forget the cake, go for the icing.
> > > Cynthia, Age 8

> So here we are, reading all this trite merde, and nothing has
> changed.

--

John Fields

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:07:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA31476;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:04:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:04:17 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27a9991928d [12.64.35.94]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
References: <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:00:44 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"7zhxG3.0.kh7.FXFLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24823
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mtchell -

   >  Stratifications, Bernard instability, and errors of
   >  thermometry and errors of calorimetry are four
   >  different things. They are being mixed up in this post
   >  along with other issues.

That stratification and Bernard instability were different things was
implied, but for focus and simplicity I lumped them together at the point
where it matters: the thermometers. Flow rate was isolated out at that part
of the post. Other errors were not implied at that point either. I still
don't see how it could possibly matter. If there is a hot pocket somewhere,
and a cold pocket somewhere, then fine. But you still need the thermos to
sit in those pockets the whole time to get false excess heat. Meaning of
course, that my point was that GIVEN all those factors, all you have to do
is be assured that you have accurate thermometers in a guaranteed mixed
cross-section of a guaranteed flow rate, and those 'errors' are eliminated.

   >  Have you read the relevant papers, and down-loaded the
   >  excerpt? It is not clear from the mixing up of issues
   >  and matters.

I have it from I.E. and Jed only, and I haven't downloaded other papers.

   >  You had better read up about flow as a function
   >  resistance to flow for non-piston drive pumps.

Such pumps have a very non-linear response to head or flow changes?

Ok then ... For instance, was the output tubing disconnected at a point
that *eliminated* flow through 2.5 meters of extra line in the heat
exchanger section while the 250cc cup was being filled? For that 15 second
interval, the flow would be higher due to reduced impedence from the
missing 2.5M section. But I doubt it would double the flow. Even if they
did eliminate a run of tubing and the pump response was very non-linear, do
you think it could, for instance, double its output? If it did, and even
barring a temperature drop that would surely occur from the increased flow,
then there's only about half as much excess heat. Still a lot.

If they sampled from the end of the line where it outfalls normally back
into the resorvoir, and the pump remained completely submerged the whole
time, then aside from the level they held the outfall at during cup
filling, there remains other issues affecting head over the pump's intake.
The fluid level above the pump would slowly drop by ... what, an inch,
maybe two? That's a small change: 0.075 psi for 2". Do you think that small
a change in input pressure would skew the flow rate by a significant
amount?

Then there's the filter area too. In the photos, it *appears* that the
fluid level is sitting right around the midpoint of the intake filter.
Small changes in fluid level when intersecting the filter body could make
for somewhat substantial changes in the filter area 'seen' by the pump's
intake function. Whether that makes a substantial change in flow rate as a
result, I don't know. Lower intake head due to a reduced filter area makes
for a smaller, not larger flow, right?

In the cases except the missing 2.5M of tube (if that even happened), you'd
see some changes in flow rate while filling the cup. I bet they'd have
noticed.

Ok, so say you get some of the errors above during filling the cup,
resulting in a much larger flow rate during cup filling. But the same
temperatures were seen when it was operating 'normally', so it seems a
stretch to me to assume the when the stratification or whatever error was
eliminated by measuring cup mixing, the motor/pump replaced the exact same
error value due to changes occuring during the process of filling the cup.
Shouldn't the temperature have taken a sudden dip during the substantially
increased flow rate as I mentioned before?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:15:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03735;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:14:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:14:12 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120001611.00822c20 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:16:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b27a9991928d [12.64.35.94]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"oLXpo2.0.Dw.ZgFLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24824
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


At 07:00 PM 11/19/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>   >  Stratifications, Bernard instability, and errors of
>   >  thermometry and errors of calorimetry are four
>   >  different things. They are being mixed up in this post
>   >  along with other issues.
>
>That stratification and Bernard instability were different things was
>implied, but for focus and simplicity I lumped them together at the point
>where it matters: the thermometers. 

  Rick:

  If you were SERIOUS, you would model the system, after determining
what it was in the first place, and integrate various aspects
quantitatively. It seems you are not since you think word-salad
is a substitute for careful semiquantatition.  It is not.


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

>I still >don't see how it could possibly matter. If there is a hot pocket
somewhere,
>and a cold pocket somewhere, then fine. 


  See the above.

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


>   >  Have you read the relevant papers, and down-loaded the
>   >  excerpt? It is not clear from the mixing up of issues
>   >  and matters.
>
>I have it from I.E. and Jed only, and I haven't downloaded other papers.

   Then PLEASE stop wasting my time, and the groups time. Jed did not read
the papers and they were not in IE.  You posts (and email) indicate
you dont really take it seriously by examining each issue and matter
(part of what SCIENCE is: ie. the study of categorized knowledge).

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



>   >  You had better read up about flow as a function
>   >  resistance to flow for non-piston drive pumps.
>
>Such pumps have a very non-linear response to head or flow changes?

  Get a book, or do the experiment.  
  Read the papers, or write one yourself, but please 
stop decreasing the S/N.  OK?

  You have stated above you dont really understand what was done,
and you dont have a clue what the papers are about.
  I know for a fact that you can do better than that, and THEN
your comments will not only be internally
consistent, but consistent with what was published.
  
  Good luck.
   Mitchell Swartz


  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:31:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA11254;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:29:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:29:53 -0800
Message-ID: <3654FE54.8116E260 dowco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:30:02 -0700
From: michael olson <amplexus dowco.com>
Reply-To: amplexus dowco.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Moths
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xlnww2.0.ml2.GvFLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24825
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Does anyone happen to know how moths hear?

Michael

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:39:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA15022;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:37:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:37:47 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:29:49 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: michael olson <amplexus dowco.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Moths
In-Reply-To: <3654FE54.8116E260 dowco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981120002756.22090H-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cDTQW1.0.eg3.g0GLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24826
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear  M. Olsen

	One mechanism for LF is through their antenna ... but I think 
there is another.   They have vision range in long and medium UV... I 
have developed conversion phosphors that allow conversion of these 
wavelengths to visible... to allow you the 'see as they see'.

			JHS


On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, michael olson wrote:

> Does anyone happen to know how moths hear?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:56:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23261;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:55:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:55:00 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b27aafffd788 [12.64.35.230]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120001611.00822c20 world.std.com>
References: <l03130300b27a9991928d [12.64.35.94]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:51:33 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"yFauQ1.0.Jh5.pGGLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24828
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

  > It seems you are not since you think word-salad
  > is a substitute for careful semiquantatition.

"Semiquantatition"? Talk about word-salad! You take oil and vinegar with that?!

   >  You posts (and email) indicate you dont really take it
   >  seriously by examining each issue and matter (part of
   >  what SCIENCE is: ie. the study of categorized
   >  knowledge).

Whether my posts "indicate" that to you or not, it is certainly not the case.

   >  You have stated above you dont really understand what
   >  was done, and you dont have a clue what the papers are
   >  about.

I don't KNOW (as opposed to understand) what exactly was done so I ASKED,
hoping Jed or you would respond with actual answers. As to papers (yours?),
no. I was referring to Jed's account of the actual experiment in question.

Anyway, since you have begun to criticize me personally instead of helping
to analyze or even address the specific points and questions I brought up
about the topic here, I withdraw from this conversation.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:57:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA19129;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:45:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:45:35 -0800
Message-ID: <365501FF.5F84 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:45:35 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms: Chubb: band state theory  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GvVOb2.0.mg4._7GLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24827
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
  Date:  Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:48:18 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Continuing:  R. Blue on an alternative to d + d fusion.

Ed Storms has correctly grown less comfortable with the concept
of deuterium fusion induced by electrolysis, and is shopping
around for an acceptable alternative.  From his perspective
it is still neccessary to preserve the notion that 4He is
the major detectable nuclear reaction product that characterizes
the supposed CANR process.  I hate to tell him this in advance,
but Ed is going to find it difficult to keep all the balls he
is juggling in the air.  He will have to drop some of his
preferred CANR claims at some point.

The notion, I gather, now is that one nucleus gives up a neutron
to another nucleus which results in a nuclear excitation and
subsequent decay by alpha emission.  It is further suggested
that one of the reactants is an "impurity", which I suppose
means it is not palladium or deuterium.

Let's see if we can begin to define this hypothesis a little
better.  From the experimental evidence, as I understand
it, there are some constraints to consider:

1) The overall reaction process must, in net, be exoergic.

2) None of the residuals may be radioactive or subject to decay
by neutron emission.  I think we are excluding gamma and beta
decays as well.

3) The impurity should, I assert, be something known to be present
in order to allow the possibility for a sufficient reaction rate
without an unreal reaction probability.

What possibilities can we rule out as candidates for the
"impurity"?  Let's consider lithium, since it is present in the
electrolyte.  There is, however, one experiment that puts this
notion in trouble from the beginning.  I refer to Arata and
Zhang.  Unfortunately for Ed Storms, this experiment is also
one of the few that support the notion that helium is a product.
The problem is that the cathode involved Pd dust inside a Pd
cannister.  Only the cannister was exposed to lithium and only
the dust produced helium.  Hence we know from this one experiment
that lithium is not the source of the helium.

Actually, there is another reason for saying that lithium is not
the key impurity.  Lithium comes at either 6Li or 7Li.  Surely
if the chemical environment leads to a reaction on one isotope
it will do likewise for the other.  Having more than one isotope
to consider is, in general, going to be bad news for the Ed
Storms picture.

See how simple it is to eliminate a possibility for the Storms
reaction process.  Actually the Arata-Zhang experiment rules
out everything in the electrolyte.  The "impurity" must be
something that is in the palladium from the beginning, not something
introduced by the electrolysis.  Sealing the Pd in a cannister
of Pd does a good job of preserving its initial purity and the
purity of the absorbed hydrogen isotopes.

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.16.98
  Date:  Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:12:08 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> There is no overlap between the normal (i.e., non-band state) deuterium
> with itself (except as a singly occupied nucleus) or with any other
> nucleus.  This is because of the prohibitive Coulomb barrier that is
> involved.  Because of the electromagnetic environment that gives rise to
> the occupation of ion band states, there is no reason to believe that
> the nuclear portions of D+ ions that occupy ion band states have overlap
> with any nuclei except ion band state nuclei.  This is mandated by the
> requirements that lead to Born Oppenheimer separability between the
> nuclear and electrostatic portions of the wave function.

Don't you have the cart before the horse?  The Born Oppenheimer
separability is not a valid starting point, unless certain conditions
are met.  Those conditions apply to the internal wavefunction of the
deuteron only so long as the deuteron is "small".

> Thus, no "normal" D+ overlap occurs with each other or Pd nuclei; ion
> band state D+ nuclei can overlap only with each other.  For this reason,
> the interaction potential matrix elements only involve band state --
> band state overlap; and your comments about the Pd nucleons are
> irrelevant.  The key point is that the entire strong potential
> associated with the lattice, which seems to be what you are concerned
> with, has a great many quantities involved with it, but most of these
> are entirely irrelevant to the question of overlap and interaction
> potential.

That statement is true only so long as the deuteron remains small.  You
have forgotten what it is that confines the ion band deuterons to the
lattice in the first place.  It's the electrostatic potential that keeps
the deuteron wave function from extensive overlap with the Pd nuclei,
but only half of the deuteron experiences that interaction.  If you
extend the size of the deuteron to anything like the lattice spacing
your assumptions are invalid.

> >> What is foreign to you is the concept of a T=0, ordered solid.
> >>
> >> >Of course, if you make all sorts of idealizations you
> >> >can preserve whatever you want, but so what?
> >>
> >> The T=0 behavior of an ordered solid is the key starting point for much
> >> of what is understood about solid state physics at room temperature.
> >> The perturbations of this idealization are used to explain finite
> >> temperature effects, in particular.  So, you are simply wrong to suggest
> >> that this idealization has little relevance.
> >
> >Whether this idealization has relevance depends on what aspects of the
> >systems behavior we are considering, does it not?  Electron conductivity
> >and superconductivity and a host of other phenomena may well demonstrate
> >just the sorts of effects that are properly described by Bloch wave
> >functions and all the rest.  That does not mean that we have to accept
> >this same explaination for absolutely everything else you can dream up.
> >In particular, I still have not seen you address the question of what
> >effect nuclear binding will have on the wave function for the separation
> >coordinate of the deuteron. If you can unglue the ion-band deuterons why
> >don't you unglue absolutely everything in the lattice?
>
> The ion-band deuterons do not "unbind".  Pairs of ion-band deuterons
> "bind", releasing 23.8 MeV.  It is certainly true that not all effects
> are properly described by Bloch states, but as temperature T->0, this
> approximation becomes better and better.

What is the rms time averaged radius of an ion-band deuteron?  Is said
deuteron not a bound system with a wavefunction that dies off rather
dramatically once we exceeed a radius normally refered to as the "size
of the deuteron?"  Perhaps we have not been talking about the same
entity?

> >The mere fact that we refer to this nuclear matter as being "deuterons" is a
> >direct reflection, I should think, of the fact that we consider them to be
> >bound.  Again I repeat that bound systems are not well described by
> >Bloch wave functions.
>
> This is your misconception, not mine.  Bloch functions describe bound,
> as well as unbound states, in solids.  It's just that this fact is not
> usually emphasized.  In particular, for example, it really is not
> "possible," without performing a measurement, to distinguish one
> "core-like" electron from a second "core-like" electron.   And in some
> forms of photoexcitation, for example, banding (dispersive) effects in
> core states are readily observable.

I think we have gotten into a semantic tangle here.  A "bound" state
with respect to something in a solid lattice is, I would suggest,
a slightly different animal than the "bound state" of two nucleons
which we call a deuteron.  When I was suggesting that a Bloch
wavefunction is not appropriate for a bound state, I meant specifically
that it is not appropriate for the description of the internal
wavefunction of a deuteron. Would you care to actually address that
specific question further and perhaps hint how you get a Bloch
wavefunction to be an eigenstate for a deuteron?  Keep it simple,
please.  Just a single isolated deuteron.

> Beyond this point, however, I think you are bothered by the fact that
> each proton and neutron within each deuteron occupy a band state.  It
> should be emphasized in this picture that only the proton neutron pair
> is stable (i.e., infinitely long-lived); there are no free neutrons or
> protons.  The reason for this is associated with what I have mentioned
> concerning potential processes that do not violate Born-Oppenheimer
> separability.  The key point is that although each deuteron pair
> occupies Bloch states both in its C.M. and separation variables, the
> combined pair is "bound," in the sense that each deuteron in the pair is
> bound both to the lattice and to the remaining deuteron in the pair.
>
But what I object two is that notion that the potential for the
separation coordinate is as you describe.  It can't be that except in
your
model, a model which doesn't relate to a real physical system in

But you "assumed" your way into having no overlap.  You haven't shown
that it makes any sense.

> The self-consistent calculation illustrates how the Coulomb barrier is
> overcome.  As I mentioned, you can find out about this in more detail at
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/va/schubb

As for suggesting that I don't have my "facts" straight, what "facts"
does your theory address, anyway?  You put this stuff on parade before
the least critical audience you can find, i.e. the cold fusion
advocates. When are you going to publish in Physical Review?>

> >> Nature does define ground states that have particular rules.  If it can
> >> be shown that the rules of an assumed ground state (and fluctuations
> >> about the ground state) conform to observation, then the model of the
> >> rules has some relevance.  The point is that the ground state can have
> >> rules that uniquely preserve the conditions of the ground state.  When
> >> this holds, the ground state becomes stable with respect to certain
> >> forms of fluctuation.  The significance of this is that if Nature
> >> prepares the system in such a way that the only forms of fluctuation
> >> that are present preserve the ground state, then the ground state
> >> becomes stable.  If the ground state is sufficiently stable,
> >> interactions can occur.
> >>
> >> >Likewise assuming that the lattice is at T=0 can hardly
> >> >justify saying that everything has to remain in its
> >> >ground state because it's at T=0.  Unless you have
> >> >some infinite heat sink hidden in the lattice there is
> >> >nothing to keep it at T=0 if there is an energy source
> >> >present.
> >>
> >> The question of how well the T=0 limit applies is a function of crystal
> >> size, loading and energy gap.
> >
> >I think we know something about how well your limit applies to the real
> >problem.  The deuteron lattice is totally disordered with respect to the
> >separation coordinate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
>
> At T=0, you simply can never assert this to be true.  In fact, at T=0,
> the deuteron lattice must be ordered with respect to this separation.
> Otherwise, a finite entropy contribution is present, and either 1) the
> system is not at T=0, or 2) there is latent heat in the system that has
> not been accounted for.
>
> More importantly, we have illustrated that the energy is lowered
> (through Coulombic interaction) when the deuteron lattice is ordered
> with respect to the separation coordinate.  This occurs because the
> Coulombic repulsion is reduced coherently when this dependence is
> present.  The result is self-consistent, because fluctuations exist that
> preserve this symmetry while maintaining the T=0 configuration.
>
> Again, in the real problem, there is reason to believe that considerable
> order is present (based on neutron scattering experiments).

What neutron scattering experiments? and what "order" is demonstrated?
Let me suggest that you are possibly confusing neutron scattering from
atomic electrons with neutron scattering from nuclei. One system may
have a high degree of order while the other does not.  We need to be
sure we know which is involved.

> >You have not given us, for example, even an estimate of the energy
> >differences between between the various nuclear orientations.  You have
> >not made reference to any observed phenomena that would reflect nuclear
> >ordering in this, or any other, lattice. What you are talking about, in
> >general, are the phenomena that are associated with conduction electrons
> >in a lattice. Specifically there are conduction electrons only because
> >levels below the band gap are fully occupied.
>
> The last part of this comment is simply a mistatement both about our
> theory and about the nature of periodic phenomena in solids.  In
> particular, "What [I am not] talking about, in general, are the
> phenomena that are [simply] associated with conduction electrons in a
> lattice...[and] there are conduction electrons only because levels below
> the band gap are fully occupied."  This comment totally misses the
> point.  I am talking about the coherent phenomena that result from
> periodic order.  These provide a means for momenta to be transferred
> locally or non-locally to or away from a particular location without
> changing the energy of anything within the solid.  These phenomena play
> an important role in electron conduction, but are considerably more
> general in nature.  In particular, they are of fundamental importance in
> Bragg scattering of x-rays, and the Mossbauer effect.

You are attempting to extend the physics that is appropriate to the
description of the above "coherent phenomena" to something else that is
entirely different, and you are totally ignoring the important
distinctions between these two domains.  I am not denying the existance
of coherence phenomina. I am suggesting that cold fusion is not
appropriately treated by the coherence you assume, and I believe it is
rather obvious why that remains the case.

> The first portion of your comment is somewhat vague.  If you mean that I
> have not discussed the energies associated with disordering the nuclear
> state, I think it is important to point out that, beginning from a T=0
> configuration, until some outside form of entropy is introduced, there
> is no disorder.  In fact, although Pd is not ferromagnetic, it is close
> to being so; so that a degree of spin-spin coupling is expected.  In
> small crystals, these questions very well may be irrelevant.  The reason
> is that in these structures, mechanical changes can couple to the
> underlying electronic structure in a manner that can result in magnetic
> ordering of the nuclear moments.

Now isn't that wonderful?  If we could start with a state of perfect
order, it would, as you assert, take some form of entropy from outside
to transform that state of order to one of disorder.  Isn't that
profound!  However, the last time I checked I was living in a universe
filled with potential sources of the required entropy.  My own
experience with low temperature systems is that really very little
effort is needed to get their temperature to rise.  I assure you that
it's easy to arrive at a state of nuclear disorder and very difficult to
establish nuclear ordering.  You suggest that spin-spin coupling between
Pd and D is available to do the job, but you have not supplied the
estimate of the interaction energy I requested. Tell us what the number
actually is or at least what you are assuming it to be.  With a number
in hand can we not arrive at an estimate for the degree of order in a
system of nuclear spins at 300K?

> >There simply is nothing
> >analogous to this condition for the separation coordinate and the strong
> >interaction potential. In essence, you are insisting that a virtual
> >neutron can spread throughout the lattice as a free particle, but that
> >it will not interact with any other nucleons present in that lattice.
>
> This is your conclusion, and yours alone.  For the separation coordinate
> to be present, all that is required is taht there is a second Bloch
> function deuteron present.  Through the C.M. coordinate of each
> deuteron, each neutron has a proton paired with it, and vice-versa.
> Then, the neutron is paired to the proton that might be in one unit
> cell, or a second unit cell, or a third,..., etc..  In the case of the
> separation variable, what happens is that each proton-neutron (p-n) pair
> is paired with a second p-n pair which may be in one unit cell, or a
> second unit cell, or a third,...etc.  I think what bothers you is that
> this is equivalent to saying that the reaction occurs in all unit cells
> at once.  And there is nothing wrong with this. But behind this, most
> assuredly, is not the statement, which you assert, that each neutron
> spreads out as a "virtual free particle."

No, what bothers me is this assertion that the quantum mechanics of
the internal motion of the deuteron is governed by a periodic potential
with a period that is orders of magnitude larger than the range of the
strong interaction yet is not influenced by the presence of other
nucleons within comparable distances.  You must, I suggest, either
decide that the neutron is kept out of range of those other nucleons by
being bound to the proton or it is not so constrained.  If it is
constrained by being bound to the deuteron, your periodic lattice is
irrelevent, unless you can show a remarkable degree of coherence for the
wave function.  Now that coherence may be appropriate for some state of
ideal order, but we don't have, to any reasonable approximation, a
highly ordered state.

> The picture we present is entirely consistent with conventional nuclear
> physics as it should apply when coherent interactions resulting from
> periodic order are present.

Except for the fact that you cannot justify the assumed coherence!

> >I would further note that many of the properties of conduction electrons
> >require the very long range of the coloumb interaction potential.  A
> >change in the radial dependence of the interaction potential to
> >something more appropriate for the strong interaction can make all this
> >disappear in a puff of smoke.
>
> The process is a delicate one and is clearly materials dependent.

You bet it's "materials dependent."  We just don't happen to have any
of that material available to us.

> Finally, I'd like to comment on the following remark that you made
> recently in a discussion with Ed Storms.  You said the following:
>
> > I would anticipate something similar to that behavior, should there be
> > a perturbing effect of a palladium lattice on the fusion of two
> > deuterons.  In particular such a perturbation is unlikely, I would
> > suggest, to totally supress the emission of neutrons.
>
> This is true when the "normal" factorization of nuclear and
> electrostatic wave functions occurs; this factorization is allowable
> when the strong and electromagnetic interactions proceed on very
> different timescales.  In a coherent solid near T=0, all bets are off
> with regard to this point because, as a consequence of coherence, it is
> not necessarily required that nuclear and electromagnetic interactions
> proceed with dramatically different energy scales.  (This is especially
> true when the location of the nuclear reaction becomes indeterminate,
> modulo a lattice vector, through the kinds of processes that I have
> outlined.)

I am still not clear on this point.  Aren't the time and energy scales
linked?  Since the whole point of this excercise is to find a source of
remarkable energy does that not still imply that the nuclear transitions
will occur faster than a typical atomic transition?

> It is clear that
> > if the phenomena has the characteristics Ed Storms would ascribe to it,
> > we are not dealing with small perturbations. The claims for CANR
> > success, if they are correct, demand major alterations in nuclear wave
> > functions.
>
> The perturbing potentials can, if fact, be quite small.  However, this
> occurs through alterations in the wave functions.  The alterations, as I
> have just suggested, result from the requirement that energy scales for
> electromagnetic and nuclear reactions need not be very different.

I can agree with that, except for the fact that I don't know of any real
physical system that puts the energy scales for electromagnetic and
strong interactions on precisely the same footing.  There is a reason
for calling them "strong interactions."  So how can the perturbing
potentials (electromagnetic I presume) alter the wave functions which
are eigenfunctions for a system that interacts via the strong
interaction if the perturbing potential is "small".  I thought
perturbation theory said that ain't so.

> > The choice, it seems to me, is to consider either unexpected
> > experimental difficulties or mindboggling theoretical problems.
>
> These are only mind-boggling theoretically if you assume that the usual
> picture involving incoherent interactions is involved.

Well, if showing that the reactions are coherent is not difficult why
have you not done a better job of selling your theory?  Just how do you
demonstrate that coherence is the normal thing we should be finding for
such systems?

> >I do not get the impression that Ed Storms has the proper respect for just
> > what is required to accommodate his assessment of the experimental
> > evidence. He seems to think you can turn off neutron emission as easily
> > as turning off a light.  I don't think so.
>
> I don't think you've addressed two important questions:
>
> 1.)  What is required (as opposed to what is usual) in quantum
> mechanical interactions involving nucleons,
>
> 2.)  How can coherent interactions alter the rules for quantum
> mechanical interactions involving nucleons.

I'd be glad to address point 1 at some length, but it would essentially
be a lecture on elementary nuclear physics.  You know, all the usual
stuff about conservation laws and selection rules and supermultiplets.
Of course I would mention typical scales for the system coordinates
and note how dramatically nuclear systems differ from atom sytems.
You see I hold the view that we have learned what is required by
studying what is usual.  To get something unusual you must introduce a
significant new parameter to the problem.  So far all you have offered
to explain a deviation from the usual is the notion of coherence in
nuclear wave functions over large distances.  What I find troubling
about your approach is that you are insisting that nuclear wave
functions remain largely unperturbed in spite of this remarkable
coherence.  I would say that if one is to properly explore the domain of
nuclear coherence over large distances you have to give up the usual
aspects of nuclear models which treat nuclei in isolation.

> There is a final point.  The theoretical framework from which our theory
> is derived is based not only on the rules of solid state and nuclear
> physics and the behavior of PdD, but it is self-consistent in the sense
> that the initial quantities are well-defined, and the perturbations of
> these quantities are small.  For example, there are no high energy
> particles, essentially, because there are no highly localized
> distributions of particles or charges that are ever involved in the
> interactions.

Within that paragraph I see you saying that the perturbations are small,
but the particles and interactions are not highly localized.  The
mystery is how something that comes from the store as highly localized
deuteron thingies gets transformed to being delocalized without being
highly perturbed.  I see that as being self-contradictory.  If the thing
is a deuteron and has a deuteron wave function, that wave function, by
definition, involves localization.  You want something to be delocalized
and you give it a different wave function.  That, in my book, is not
a deuteron, and I will note that to delocalize the separation coordinate
of the deuteron  requires a significant amount of energy.  That is to
say there is a nuclear band gap which you are, it seems, ignoring.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 21:59:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA25470;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:58:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:58:28 -0800
Message-ID: <365504F5.FA8 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:58:13 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QS0D_3.0.uD6.3KGLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24829
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Chubb: Carr: Blue: band state theory 11.17.98
  Date:  Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:03:14 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Scott Chubb

What Scott Chubb reads as my "misquoting" of his theory is, I believe,
an appropropriate restatement of the true implications of his
assumptions and/or assertions within the context of my exchanges
with Ed Storms.

My references to electron conduction band theory is, I believe, useful
for anyone who is not fully up to speed on ion band states.  I
do not believe that the formalisms employed by Scott Shubb are
unique to his presentations relating to deuteron ion band states.
However, if I am wrong on that point, I stand corrected and will
henceforth make no further reference to conduction electrons.

As for the validity of a T=0 approximation, let me suggest that
Scott Chubb has failed to provide any justification for an assertion
that nuclear order will exist in the PdD lattice he describes.
I note that he is now suggesting that only "approximate" order
is required or that the time-averaged state will have sufficient
order for the sort of resonant coupling he seeks.  In contrast
to that claim I will suggest that any experimental test ever
applied to nuclear spin systems under similar conditions fails
to show any such ordering.  An assumption of order, such as
the one Scott Chubb is making, that has no justification in
experimental observations is only an assumption.  When the
entire theory hangs on that assumption I don't see that
we have much to discuss further.

As for my interpreting his use of a periodic "self" potential
for the deuteron separation coordinate incorrectly, clearly
this is something that needs further clarification.  I ask
specifically about what periodic potential was used for the
interaction between the proton and the neutron.  In a normal
calculation of the deuteron wave function, that question
never comes up, because there is nothing else significant
within distances limited by the range of the strong interaction.

However, Scott Chubb is suggesting that way out at a distance
of one lattice spacing (at the location of the next deuteron,
if you will) there is the next dip in a periodic potential.
What I was pointing out is the obvious fact that if you consider
distance that great, you have to include contributions to the
strong interaction potential from those other nucleons that
are in the real lattice.  How does Scott Chubb make the Pd
nuclei vanish?

I gather, though it has been like pulling teeth to get this
stated clearly, Scott Chubb believes he has accomplished the
vanishing of the Pd via the Born-Oppenheimer separation.
I think he has just pulled a slight of hand here that we
should not let him get away with.  I will say that the
B-O separation between a part of the wave function which involves
only the center-of-mass motion of the deuteron and the remaining
internal wave function can be justified only so long as
there is no significant coupling between the strong interaction
potential and the position of the deuteron in the lattice.
The crucial physics that underlies that assumption is the
fact that the strong interaction keeps the size of the deuteron
small.

If you expand the size of the deuteron, i.e. let the
separation coordinate expand by N times the lattice spacing,
you no longer have a problem in which the conditions for
separability can possibly be met.  It is only the neutron's
close association with the proton in a tight little package
we call the deuteron that keeps it from getting close to
the Pd, for example.  If you expand the size of the package
all bets are off.

Since it seems that an invalid Born-Oppenheimer separation is
essential to the outcome that Scott Chubb presents, nothing
valid can derive therefrom.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 22:38:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA01007;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:25:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:25:14 -0800
Message-ID: <36550B2E.287E earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:24:46 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"V_YfK1.0.fF.9jGLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24830
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.17.98
      Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:38:36 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net
Rich Murray wrote:
 
> Subject: More on the Storms/Shanahan Discourse
>   Date:  Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:55 -0400 (EDT)
>   From:  Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

I will try to comment on your particular points and then summarize my
arguments at the end.

> Specifically you state that: "You have to assume that the electrodes
> become increasingly catalytic as time goes on. "
> 
> If you imply a specific form to the time evolution of the activity, I
> can't agree.  Because the factors controlling the birth, activity, and
> death of the sites are unknown, whether they remain constant or change
> is unknown, and what controls them is unknown.  Thus, the signal they
> produce can do anything it desires, with no regard to anything but those
> uncontrolled unknown factors.

I do not imply a form, only that the apparent excess energy generally
increases with time.  If your process is to explain the observation, it
also must increase with time in the same manner.

> Also:  "You have to assume that the effect is somehow related to the
> composition of Pd and not to time."
> 
> Not at all.  I assume standard chemistry, which means that the Pd will
> have some relevance, but the treatment it receives will also play a
> role.  Further, what contacts the Pd will also have a potential role.
> Time will provide impact as well through standard chemical kinetics of
> competing and complimentary reactions.

Again, if your explanation is to be correct, its behavior must match
what is seen.  The apparent excess is found to be present only when
certain high compositions have been achieved.  This process can take
days or it can take weeks.  Therefore, time is not the important
variable but the composition is.  Can you relate your process to the
achieved composition?

> I believe my postulate is as generally applicable to understanding the
> behavior of these cells as the CANR proposal.  The true fundamental
> difference here between my basic position and yours is that you
> postulate an over-unity performance, and I do not, which leads us back
> to the first part of my proposal.
> 
> Re: The measurement accuracy of closed cell calorimeters
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Above I stated that I postulate a measurement error imbedded in the
> method, the 'method' being a combination of the cell design and the
> mathematics used to convert the raw data to meaningful quantities such
> as power.  My model expresses the excess heat signal in terms of a
> postulated difference in heat detection efficiency arising from
> inhomogeneous heat source distribution.  You have basically concluded
> that this cannot occur because of published and unpublished
> temperature measurements you have conducted.  Unfortunately, I would
> need to see the entire protocol used to reach your conclusions, i.e. a
> full set of publications, before I could progress past the point I am
> now, which is assuming that you simply didn't probe the cell adequately.
> 
> I have noted a few inconsistencies in your response which I would like
> to address, regarding the issue of temperature homogeneity in the cell.
> First, some thermal conductivities (taken from the CRC Handbook of Chem.
> and Phys. and Chilton and Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook):
> 
> Pt 716-730, Pd 718, Pyrex  11.7, Water 6.4, Teflon 2.4, D2 1.4, N2 0.3
> (all are in the same units, mW/cm*K )
> 
> As you can see the least thermally conductive material is the deuterium
> gas (the N2 number is for comparing D2 to air for reference).  Thus heat
> transport through the gas would be the major bottleneck to heat
> transfer.  Yes, the Pyrex is a poorer conductor than Pt or Pd, but not
> that bad.  It is about twice that of water.  Teflon's conductivity is
> 1/3 that of the water, but a little under 2X that of D2.  I contend that
> if stirring is needed to avoid thermal gradients in the electrolyte,
> then stirring is needed even more so to avoid thermal stratification in
> the gas phase.  As I recall such stirring is incidental to the ongoing
> process, which has been shown to be an inadequate approach for the
> liquid, a material with better thermal conductivity.

The figures you quote are for static thermal conductivity.  However,
most conduction in a gas is caused by thermal convection.  Anyone who
has used hydrogen knows that this gas is very effectively in cooling an
object, much better than nitrogen for example. Convection in a gas is
much easier to achieve than in a liquid because of the vast difference
in viscosity.

> In addition, if you consider the water formed at the recombiner, the way
> I look at it, to get it to the liquid phase and thus able to drip into
> the electrolyte, you have to remove the heat of vaporization from it.
> That would leave liquid water at close to its boiling point on the
> recombiner.  That leaves very little space for heat absorbtion and
> subsequent transfer to the electrolyte by that water.  If you observe
> significant dripping from the recombiner, I would expect the liquid to
> have arisen from splashes onto the recombiner, and that should be the
> only significant way to get heat transfer from the recombiner to the
> liquid via droplets.

The recombiner surface is designed to reject liquid water.  The gas
forms water and this water immediately balls up and runs off the
surface. At high power, the surface is sufficiently hot to cause some
vaporization. This vapor subsequently condenses on the cooler Pyrex
container and the water runs into the electrolyte. If you will consult
several of my papers, you will see a drawing of the design. Great effort
is taken to keep the electrolyte from splashing on to the recombiner
because this will quickly lead to deactivation.

> At this point I think I can see the lines being drawn in the sand.  I
> need full descriptions of the experiments that Dr. Storms uses to claim
> complete mixing in the gas space, and he isn't ready to publish them.
> The net conclusion is that, barring other experimental results, I will
> have to wait before I can reject my hypothesis of incomplete thermal
> mixing in the cells.

True, but a lot is known and available for your study which casts
considerable doubt on your explanation, not the least of which is that
excess power is detected in calorimeters which are completely
insensitive to the location of produced power or which used external
recombination.

> Some specific points:
> ---------------------
> 
> Ed wrote:
> 
> > Following this calibration, ...{snip}...  As you
> >suggest, this shows that power being produced at the recombiner does not
> >affect the behavior of the cell.
> 
> No Ed, I said the Pt sheet didn't affect the recombiner function.  My
> whole thesis is that heat produced at the recombiner in one steady-state
> moves to the liquid in another.  Or were you restricting your comment to
> calibration cells where no excess heat signal is detected?  In that
> case, the failure of the electrode to catalyze recombination at the
> elevated levels of 'special Pd' is the primary reason there is no
> apparent recombiner effect.

As I discuss below, you need to show that the location of heat
production can change by a sufficient amount and that this change can
change the measured delta T by a sufficient amount. I do not believe you
can show an effect of sufficient magnitude.

> Ed mentioned that removing Pd electrodes did not produce rapid heating
> from these catalytically active sites, and uses this to discount my
> proposal.  Unfortunately, I would expect sites that were so hard to
> produce to be easily destroyed when presented with 20% oxygen in N2, as
> opposed to whatever the local concentration is in the electrolyte.  In
> other words Ed's observations are easily dismissed within the context of
> catalytic chemistry behavior as irrelevant to the behavior of the
> electrode in the cell.

Of course, this is an easy assumption to make.  However, if I had seen a
correlation between external activity and previous excess energy
production, your argument would have been strengthened.  The fact that I
have not seen this correlation may not shoot down your argument, but it
does not help either.

> Ed wrote that to get significant recombination at the electrode, bubble
> transport must be significant, and it isn't.  However, who's to say that
> in ALL operating conditions of the cell, D2 and O2 are NOT presented to
> the electrode in sufficient quantities to produce an apparent excess,
> ASSUMING the presence of those catalytic sites.  Thus, it would be only
> after they grew in that 'excess heat' would be observed, because the D2
> and O2 didn't react at the electrode before that point.  I realize the
> bubbles have buoyant forces on them forcing them up, but isn't the
> stirrer specifically added to overcome this, because otherwise gradients
> are produced?  Ed also mentions that convection currents transport most
> of the gas to the surface.  Again, doesn't the stirrer overcome
> this?  The upshot is that I am uncertain what the D2 and O2
> concentrations at the electrode surface are, and whether they change
> during the different current level operations.

Yes, the stirring would allow some oxygen to reach the cathode. 
However, the cathode is contained within a structure created by the
anode.  Mixing within the structure is therefore reduced.  Mixing
outside of that structure carries the oxygen away from the cathode.  It
helps to see the diagrams which have been published or, better yet, see
the apparatus. Debating from imagined, abstract ideas is not very
useful.
 
> Ed wrote:
> >2. You have to assume that the temperature difference between the gas
> >and the fluid is large, and that a change in this difference will
> >produce a change in the calibration constant.
> 
> No, I assume localized hot spots that change, I make no assumptions
> about changing calibration constants.  In fact, my thesis is that the
> calibration constant determined under one steady-state is really not
> applicable to another.

The calibration constant is a conventional concept which is used to
compare various conditions. We can either say the constant changes or we
can say the average delta T changes.  Both are equivalent.  If I
understand your view, you are saying that changes in the location of
heat production change the measured average temperature in such a way
that this change, when multiplied by the previously measured calibration
constant, appears to indicate production of excess energy. 

> Later in the same paragraph Ed writes:
> >If required, I can pull out some examples from my experience.  I have not taken
> the trouble to publish these >studies because the possible error appears
> to be
> so unimportant.
> 
> This is what I would love to see in full detail.  The snippets you have
> noted so far have just stimulated my appetite for a 'full meal'.
> 
> And:
> >I have since gone to a flow calorimeter which side-steps all of these issues.
> 
> Why would this side step the issue?  If the calorimeter has differing
> heat capture efficiencies that can be 'exploited' by shifting heat
> production patterns, my proposal should hold.  In fact, I can't envision
> a calorimeter that might not suffer from this problem to some degree or
> another, depending entirely on the design of the heat capture surfaces.
> I note that later you extend this conclusion to other types of
> calorimeters, specifically flow, Seebeck, and double-wall isoparibolic.
> Please would you clarify this conclusion of yours?

These calorimeter types do not care where in the device the energy is
made. Of course, a purest who is looking for microwatts will raise an
objection.  However, for all practical purposes when measurements are in
the milliwatt region, this statement generally applies. 

The flow-type measures the energy captured by flowing water.  If the
calorimeter is well insulated, essentially all of the heat produced
anywhere within the device ends up in the water.  Of course a little is
lost through the leads but this is minimized by placing the device in an
environment whose temperature is equal to the interior temperature.  

A double-wall isoparibolic device takes the heat from the cell, averages
the temperature within a fluid or piece of metal, and then measures the
temperature difference across a second thermal barrier.  As a result,
the temperature uncertainty across the important thermal barrier is
eliminated. 

A Seebeck calorimeter surrounds the sample by paths through which heat
can leave and each one of these paths develops a voltage proportional to
the amount of heat leaving through that path.  The voltages are summed
and, therefore, represent the total amount of heat, regardless of its
source. You might do some reading on calorimetry, which could save us
some time.

> Further down:
> >Yes, important heat is lost through the top.  You are taking about a
> >second order effect produced by small changes in the gas temperature.
> >This effect is small compared to the original, steady heat loss which is
> >corrected for by the calibration.
> 
> What I am _really_ trying to talk about is an effect that could appear
> to be tens of watts.  If I diverged to lesser issues, I apologize for
> distracting attention.  Recall that I 'claim':
>    excess heat = "transferred heat" * kc * (k2-k1)
> kc is the reciprocal of the overall calorimeter collection efficiency.
> In the horrible case of 10%, kc=10. With that much inefficiency, could
> k2-k1 reach .5 perhaps?  Then if X is 10 W, the excess heat signal would
> be 50W!  I don't call that second order.  This is a _primary_
> explanation for the apparent excess heat, and needs to be directly
> addressed by experiments designed to exclude or assess the possibility,
> in my opinion.  Thus we end up back at the lines in the sand.

This equation is not correct.  Energy = (calibration constant) * delta 
This is the primary measurement.  Excess = Energy change from a base
line.  This base line is either obtained from a calibration or from the
previous behavior of the sample while being electrolyzed. For the base
line to change, a change in measured delta T across the barrier must
occur. A number of gradients exist within the cell which are normally
constant, hence their presence is not seen as excess.  Only if these
gradients change can the apparent excess be affected.  This change is a
secondary effect superimposed on the primary gradient.  The issue is
whether this change can produce your proposed effect.

> Later, in reference to my table of average excess power and current:
> >Therefore, the averages mean nothing.
> 
> Ummm...taking an average is a simple mathematical action.  Plotting the
> average against a proposed relevant experimental parameter and showing a
> monotonic dependence is a mathematical fact.  The relationship exists,
> and explaining it should be of interest.  The plot may not show direct
> cause-and-effect, but it probably contains some of that if the relevant
> variables are expressed correctly.  Please note a second plot of
> interest showing a similar curvature would be "Standard Deviation at a
> Power" vs. "Current".

You miss the point.  If you take an average while several variables are
changing, it is impossible to know what the average means.  Does your
average reflect the effect of time or does it reflect the effect of
current?

> Further:
> >No, the opposite effect is actually seen. Lower currents cause an
> >increased fraction of the gas to be recombined on the electrode
> >surfaces.  Such currents are well below those required to produce excess
> >power.
> 
> Note we are talking apples and oranges.  Which relates to your other
> comment:

The observations, not speculations, show that the fraction of gas
recombined at the cathode increases as the current is reduced.  Of
course, the amount of heat represented by this recombination also
decreases. Your model proposes the opposite, that the fraction of gas
recombined at the cathode increases as the current is increased.
Otherwise you can not account for the proposed increased excess energy
as current is increased.

> >Now I'm confused.  Do you mean this?
> 
> I certainly do.  As the current increases, the available recombination
> heat increases.  However, whether the apparent excess heat signal
> changes is dependent strictly on how much is transferred.  In principle,
> I would guess that changing current would change the amount transferred,
> but for a fixed transfer heat (say 1W), as the current goes up, the
> percent the 1W represents goes down, but the excess heat signal remains
> at 1W.

But the observed excess does not remain constant at 1 W, as in your
example. You must assume that the amount of recombination increases and
its location shifts so as to produce an apparent excess.

> Now what you are talking about is that as current goes down the fraction
> of gas recombined goes up.  This is reasonably due to more direct
> transport of the gases to the surface with higher gas production rates
> at higher current.  But, if I pass .1A, I get .15W, and it may appear
> 100% in the liquid.  If I pass 2.8A and get 4.3W, and only get 20% of
> that recombination in the liquid, that means I see .86W, which is close
> to a 4X "larger" excess heat signal. (And again, doesn't effective
> stirring negate this argument about more recombination at lower
> current?)

This effect occurs only below very low currents and is essentially zero
at the cathode for currents over about 0.5A. Thus, the effect occurs
only when the amount of heat involved in the relocation process is
small.

> --------------------------
> At this point I have reached my limit of available time.  There may be
> more specific points I need or could address, but I will stop here and
> summarize where I see our discussion arriving at this point.
> 
> I have presented a postulate that with appropriate numerics can explain
> excess heat signals in calorimeters.  (I note that this is not the only
> effect that can be active in a given calorimeter.)  I contend this is
> primarily a function of design and could impact any calorimeter.  The
> postulate requires a localized heat source in the cell be redistributed
> to an area of differing heat capture efficiency by an unspecified
> method.
> 
> Ed suggests that my proposal requires a temperature difference between
> gas and liquid (or more correctly between the two regions of the cell
> with different efficiencies), and states he has designed away and looked
> for and found no such discrepancies.  Thus my proposal is moot because
> the physical conditions it requires are not found.
> 
> I have then pointed out that the D2 gas in the cell represents the least
> thermally conductive medium of the major cell constituents usually
> cited.  The implication being that the gas region of the cells may be
> susceptible to stratification.  This requires temperature measurements
> be done carefully, but the lack of gradients would be strong evidence
> against my proposal if true.  I therefore respectfully request such
> evidence, which should include the complete experimental descriptions,
> i.e. papers.  I know Ed doesn't have this all readily available.
> 
> Further and separately, I have presented a mundane chemical explanation
> for how the generic cold fusion cell heat observations may be explained,
> within the context of the model I mention above.  Unfortunately, this
> proposal is as hard to prove as CANR.
> 
> The heat transfer proposition however is easily checked with a
> calibration heater in the gas phase.  Until I see high quality
> experimentation aimed at checking this postulate in a form that can be
> studied at my leisure, I retain my right to be a skeptic on the CANR
> issue.
> 
> I would also like to make it clear once again that while I have defended
> my proposals vigorously, in the face of good, solid technical
> explanations of the things I am trying to explain, I will quietly fold
> my tents and go away.  I try not to get 'pathologically' attached to my
> own ideas, but I do admit I surely like them, and I can certainly be
> stubborn!
> 
> And so I wait...

Before I discuss your clearly stated idea, let me summarize what I
understand you to propose.

You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
catalytic activity at the cathode.  This change causes the production of
recombination heat to move from the recombiner, located in the gas
space, to the cathode surface located in the liquid.  This change in
location causes a change in the measured internal average temperature,
which is misinterpreted as excess energy.

Next, I would like to summarize how I understand an isoparibolic
calorimeter to work.  As a consequence of a temperature gradient between
the interior of the calorimeter and the outside, heat flows through the
wall.  The amount of heat is directly proportional to the temperature
difference. Because, the temperature is not uniform within the cell, the
heat flow is larger in some regions of the wall compare to other
regions. In order for an average heat flow to be determined, an average
interior temperature is required.  The outside temperature is assumed to
be uniform.  The problem comes in trying to measure a true average
interior temperature.  An approximation of this average is achieved by
measuring the temperature at several locations and by stirring the
liquid so as to make the temperature more uniform.  However, the
temperature of the gas also affects the rate of heat loss.  Hence, if
the gas temperature changes and this change is not reflected in the
measured average, calculated heat production will be in error.  You are
proposing that the temperature becomes less uniform when the location of
recombination changes, hence the measured average becomes further from
the true average temperature.

The process you describe has merit as a general principle.  However, the
issue is one of magnitude.  
1. Will the catalytic activity of the cathode increase by a sufficient
amount? 
2. Will sufficient oxygen diffuse through the liquid to make the
proposed recombination possible? 
3. Will the gas and fluid temperatures change by an amount sufficient to
introduce an error that can account for the observed excess energy?  

The success of your process hinges on answers to these questions. 

I will try to address each.

1. Mel Miles studied this effect using open cells and found that
recombination at the cathode did not increase and was not in any way
related to heat production.  Also, I find no evidence for increased
catalytic activity in air after a study, except in a few cases.  You
suggest the catalytic activity could have been destroyed upon exposure
to air.  True, but this obviously does not always happen.  While this
experience does not eliminate your suggestion, it certainly weakens it.

2. In order for the proposed increased catalytic activity to have any
effect, oxygen has to diffuse to the cathode.  Most of the oxygen moves
quickly to the surface of the electrolyte as bubbles and, therefore, is
unavailable to the cathode.  (Note more detail in the previous comment
above) Many small bubbles circulate within the fluid and some small
fraction of these will certainly contact the cathode.  For recombination
to occur, the bubbles would have to avoid the hydrogen bubbles being
generated and their contents would have to be absorbed on the surface. 
While I can not calculate the expected arrival rate of oxygen, you can
see that this would be a relative slow process and that it is the rate
determining step in the recombination process. Dissolved oxygen would
have an even slower arrival rate.  Therefore, no matter how catalytic
the Pd becomes, there is a limiting rate of recombination.  Of course,
we can dance around this mechanism all day but in the end, only a small
fraction of the oxygen is available.

3. The gas temperature, based on measurement, is very close to the
liquid temperature when I have made such measurements.  Of course, I
have not measured all cell configurations.  Therefore, I can not say for
sure that all cells have this behavior.  However, I try to design the
cell to minimize the temperature gradient within the gas.   Different
designs have given similar results.  Therefore, the effect is not design
dependent. 

Let�s assume that the power being deposited at the recombiner decreased
by 10%.  What change would be produced in the temperature of the gas
space and the electrolyte? At full power, when the recombination power
is about 4 watts,  the gas is found to be about a +0.5� hotter than the
liquid.  I might expect this 10% change to cause the gas temperature to
decrease by about a 0.05�.  This temperature change would cause the
amount of heat leaving through the wall in contact with the gas to
decrease.  At the same time, the temperature of the fluid would
increase.  This increase would be smaller than the change in gas
temperature because the wall area in contact with the liquid is about
three times larger than that in contact with the gas.  This being the
case, the additional energy leaving the fluid would require a smaller
temperature difference to compensate for the reduction in loss through
the gas-contact wall.  A change of +0.02� would be a reasonable
estimation. Because it is the temperature of the fluid which is used to
calculate the produced energy, this increase would be interpreted as an
increase in produced power. This change in temperature would introduce
an error of about 80 mW in the my typical calorimeter.  (0.02� *
4W/degree).  The LANL calorimeter produced a maximum excess of 5.5 W
before the recombiner failed.  Other devices of mine have produced up to
4 watts. Therefore, such a temperature error can not explain the
excess.  Of course, one can assume a larger temperature change, but the
more the error, the harder it is to justify.   I can see no way to
explain 4-5 watts!

If a change in the location of power production is a possible
explanation, this can be tested by introducing power directly into the
fluid by a heater in the absence of electrolysis.  In this way, no heat
would be introduced into the gas by the recombiner.  If this test is
made while the fluid is mechanically stirred, to eliminate fluid
gradients, the calibration constant is found to be nearly identical to
that obtained from a calibration using electrolysis.  Therefore, the
amount of power being dissipated into the gas by the recombiner has no
effect on the measurements.  This test has been made using all of my
calorimeter designs.  While there is a slight difference, caused partly
by residual gradients, differences in the stagnate layer, and
differences in where the voltage is measured, the amount of difference
can not explain the magnitude of the observed excess energy.  Since this
interest has developed, I am planning to publish this data as part of
the description of my dual calorimeter and its use in measuring excess
energy produced by thin films.  You will just have to be patient for the
details.

I would like to make a personal observation.  Anyone attempting to
explain the observations of excess energy at this time will have a hard
time. Granted, many different explanations can be proposed, but all of
these have now been considered by people still in the field. We are
neither fools nor incompetent hobbyists. Early in the field such
suggestions were valuable.  The field has grown, and the effect has been
seen so many different ways that it is almost impossible to suggest
rational errors which have not already been considered. I have no
problem with someone wanting to be educated about the field and, in this
process, raise questions which challenge the claims and need to be
answered.  However, a person should not presume to find a fatal flaw and
use this presumption to reject all of the observations.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 23:05:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA10238;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:00:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:00:37 -0800
Message-ID: <36551384.3F1B earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:00:20 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact  11.19.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JctqT3.0.uV2.KEHLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24831
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.17.98
      Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:19:33 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:

Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms
 
> June 17, 1998
> 
> Hello all,  The report in May, 1998 Fusion Technology by Ohmori, Mizuno,
> and Enyo describes 7 to 30 day runs at 1 to 3 A on 2.5 to 5 cm2 Au
> electrodes in 0.5 M Na2CO3 and Na2SO4 H2O electrolyte, from a Pt anode.
> producing after a few days up to ~1 mg mostly Au precipitates, and
> leaving myriad little lily volcano-like or ear-like foam structures on
> scraped (rough) sites on the Au, as large as 20 microns wide and 30
> deep, with detected Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti, and other elements, with
> claimed isotopic ratio anomalies.
> 
> I am disputing their claim that the precipitates and spots are evidence
> of low energy nuclear transmutations, and suggesting a chemical reaction
> theory, namely that the most abundant and obvious and reactive chemicals
> present, naturally enough, H2 and O2, are recombined at the cathode.
> I don't know how much the Au will load with H2.  However, Pt, Pd, Ni,
> Os, and Ti will naturally be electrodeposited as concentrations at any
> tiny rough spots, and then will both load with H and catalyze the swift
> reaction of that H with any tiny O2 bubbles that are also attracted from
> the anode to attach to the rough spot.  The bubble and the spot will
> heat up quickly, so quickly that there is little time for heat loss by
> radiation , conduction, or convection at the Au-H2O interface.  As the
> Au heats and softens, the contained H will build up pressure and to
> expand it like popcorn, creating a popped blister of frozen foam,
> expelling some of the metal, and leaving the impressively ugly little
> lily vocanos.  The process would tend to reoccur at the thus even
> rougher spot, building up a cluster of lilies of various sizes, as is
> shown in Ohmori's dramatic images.
> 
> I will calculate the details for a 0.1 cm3 amount of O2.
> 
> Au melts at 1063 degrees C, 1336 degrees K.
> The molar specific heat Cm = 26.9 J/mol degC.
> 
> For Au, 197 g/mol   5.08X10E-3 mol/g   19.32 g/cm3   9.81X10E-2 mol/cm3
> 
> 10.2 cm3/mol      To heat from 27 to 1063 deg C, a delta of 1036 deg C,
> 
> takes heat (1036 deg C)(26.9 J/mol) = 2.79X10E4 J/mol, and to melt takes
> 
> 1.27X10E4 J/mol, known as the molar heat of fusion.  These conveniently
> 
> add up to 4.06X10E4 J/mol, or 40.6 KJ/mol to heat and melt the Au.  That
> 
> certainly sounds like a lot!
> 
> Now, we get the moles of O2 in the 0.1 cm3 O2:
> 
> n = PV/RT = (1 atm X 10-4 L)/(8.2X10E-2 atm L/degK mol)X(300 deg K) =
> 
> 4.065X10E-6  mol O2.  That's not very much.
> 
> We know that one mole O2 reacts with 2 moles H2, and may as well assume
> with 50% loading that the H2 is held within 4 moles of Au.
> 
> The reaction is 2 H2 (g) + O2 (g) ->  2H2O (g), and the enthalpy is
> 
> 2 X 241.8 KJ/mol = 483.6 KJ/mol.
> 
> So the enthalpy released is
> 
> Ec = (4.065X10E-6 mol)X(483.6 KJ/mol) = 1.97X10E-3 KJ = 1.97 J.
> 
> Now, 2 J is the energy from 1 A at 1 V for 2 sec.  Note: this is the
> 
> range that heats W to incandescence in a flashlight.
> 
> The moles of Au heated and melted by this heat are
> 
> Nm = (1.97X10E-3 KJ)/(40.6 KJ/mol) = 4.85X10E-5 mol
> 
> and the volume of Au melted is
> 
> Vm = (4.85X10E-5 mol)X(10.2 cm3/mol) = 4.95X10E-4 cm3, which, assuming
> 
> for convenience a cube, has a width .791 mm, and
> 
> mass Mm = (4.85X10E-5 mol)X(197 g/mol) = 9.56 mg, or ten times the
> 
> maximum precipitates found by Ohmori after 30 days of electrolysis at up
> 
> to 3 A and a few volts, an input energy for 2.592X10E6 sec, if at 5 V
> 
> and 3 A, of 38,880,000 J.  So the 2 J to create 10 mg of melted Au is a
> 
> most minute fraction of the available input energy.
> 
> Now, the results are the same if we have one 0.1 cm3 O2 bubble, or a
> million bubbles of size 10E-7 cm3, spread out randomly over the 30 day
> run, about 2-3 event/sec,  creating the same total of 10 mg melted Au.
> These million bubbles would as little cubes have widths .004641 cm =
> 46.4 micron, about the right size for our little lilies.  Each of these
> events would have an average energy of 2X10E-6 J.  It should be possible
> to detect IR, visible, and UV radiation, and acoustic signals, about 2-3
> event/sec.  Another test would be to use an anode which does not
> contribute Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti, and in contrast, to use an anode
> enriched in these metals.  Also, a barrier could be used to prevent O2
> bubbles from reaching the cathode from the anode, and in contrast,
> positioning the anode to maximize O2 bubble transfer.

Without getting into details about your calculation, you should be aware
of several basic facts.
1. Gold dissolves essentially no hydrogen 
2. Gold is a poor catalyst for H2+O2 recombination
3. The rate of bubble transfer is at least an order of magnitude less
than the production rate.
4. I have never seen local heating on material which can dissolve
hydrogen and catalyze recombination, such as palladium, except when
excess energy is produced.
5. In order for the Au to melt, sufficient energy would have to be
available to offset the loss by conduction through the Au and into the
water. In addition, the rate of energy production would have to overcome
these loss rates for the temperature to rise.  You have not considered
this effect.  I think you will find that you can not place sufficient H2
and O2 at one spot to locally melt Au.

Ed Storms

Rich Murray comments:  I am very grateful to finally receive some
critical discussion of my little lily hypothesis.  My hypothesis assumes
that impurity Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti are concentrated by normal
electrodeposition at any rough microspots on the Au cathode, produced by
deliberate scraping with a sharp glass edge before the run.  So, I then
assume that these impurity metals load substantially with H or D during
electrolysis.  A 50 % loading, I calculate, is enough to cause an
attached very small bubble of O2, to react catalytically with the metal
spots to cause melting and foaming.

I assume that this happens so quickly in a microbubble that heat losses
from conduction, convection,  and radiation are not important.  The
reaction zone would be shielded from the liquid by the bubble itself,
just as a drop of water will skid around on a hot metal surface,
floating on a thin layer of trapped steam on its bottom surface.  You
mention in your other posts today that some bubbles of O2 do indeed
reach the cathode in electrolysis experiments. My hypothesis needs only
2-3 microbubbles per second to produce in 30 days the ~10 milligrams of
mostly Au precipitates, reported by Mizuno.

Note, I offer at the end of my hypothesis a number of concrete
suggestions for simple tests that could falsify the hypothesis.  Since
Mizuno's claim that the micro-volcano structures can be only accounted
for by nuclear reactions is so radical, and so potentially extremely
valuable as an easily replicable proof of CANR, it is essential to
falsify my hypothesis experimentally.  If Mizuno's extremely simple
result is indeed valid, why hasn't it been widely replicated, years
later?  This would be confirmation of a revolutionary phenomenon in
CANR.  Have groups attempted to replicate, and failed, as with several
attempts in the Arata & Zhang excess heat and helium claim with Pd-black
inside Pd cathodes?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 19 23:48:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA20749;
	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:47:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:47:31 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981120075434.00edb0f8 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, 20 Nov 1998 02:54:34 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: I thought my posts were pertinent.
Resent-Message-ID: <"DxhR53.0.345.JwHLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24832
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The situation I mention about our building is the first test case of
redevelopers who will cash in on 13A government projects. I was trying to
suggest a way of harmlessly pursuing fringe science as an artform, funded by
landlords who will be forced (in this situation) if possible to uphold their
obligations. If I fail here, this ripoff will certainly reverberate through
the rest of the country. We're talking many tens of billions of dollars here.

Plus, knowledge of law might make inventor's syndrome less prevalent. You
make me sorry for trying. Just like EVERYONE else in my building who think
the ordinary person doesn't stand a chance, so don't even try.

Regretfully;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 00:06:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA24099;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:05:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:05:27 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981120081232.00ed87b8 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, 20 Nov 1998 03:12:32 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Hard hitting critique
Resent-Message-ID: <"gnFIS2.0.Tu5.7BILs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24833
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To me, a hard hitting critique is getting down to a truth that is logical
and ultimately obvious which makes one reexamine one's long held beliefs to
the point of possible revising these beliefs to conform with global
experimental observations.

It is not, in my opinion, an obvious abbreviated untrue statement of
another's position, designed to infuriate that individual to the point of
tricking him into relating true facts.


Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 01:17:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA03782;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:16:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:16:51 -0800
Message-ID: <003e01be1465$ee3d4dc0$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jets and Hydro-Microspheres
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:11:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"MSL4C1.0.yw.2EJLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24834
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

More food for thought Akira.

The kilometer/second flow velocity of a Water Jet through a hard orifice
might create nanometer-sized spheres of bound H2O or D2O molecules.

Figuring 0.2 nanometers/H2O molecule a 50 nanometer dia sphere would contain
about 8.6E6
water molcules and have a mass of about
2.57E-19 Kg.

The kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 would be
0.5*2.57E-19*1.0E6 = 1.28E-13 joules.

OTOH, a 1.0 Mev Proton would have a velocity of 1.4E7 meters/second and a
kinetic energy of 1.6E-13 joules. IOW about the same K.E.

Thus if the Mossbauer Effect, where a bound proton or deuteron acts as
though it's K.E. is the same as for the whole nanosphere, D2O (water jet)
impingement on a Boron 10-Carbide "target" might get interesting if on
impact a neutron "spalls" off of a deuteron and Fissions the Boron 10 to He4
+ Li7 + 2.78 Mev.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 04:07:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA26316;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:06:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:06:53 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b27b08ed2b2a [208.228.222.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:13:38 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: My science posts are appropriate for vortex
Resent-Message-ID: <"vRfnk2.0.6R6.TjLLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24835
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:23 PM 11/18/98, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>At 02:20 PM 11/18/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>I bring this up because Jed started a debate with Mitchell on vortexb, but
>>Mitchel dragged it back onto vortex (whether intentionally or not.)  With
>>multiple lists we will have to be careful about watching the response
>>addressees and following the vortex anti-spam rule.
>
>  Do what you want.  I am posting to vortex-l because this
>material rebuts Jed's false statements made there, and because
>it is cf engineering.
>
>   If YOU want to joke around with Jed, please do so on vortex-B where
>HE belongs with his untruthful false statements.
>
>
>  Science about o/u/cf/vorticies/zpe belong on vortex.
>
>  Hope that helps.
>   Mitchell Swartz


Your flamewar with Jed belongs on vortexb.  Jed had the good sense to put
it where it belongs.

Please do not spam it over into vortex-l by cross posting, as that is a
clear rule violation of  vortex-l rules.  You quoted some of Jed's
namecalling, thereby bringing that invective over into vortex-l, another
clear violation of the rules of vortex. That kind of protracted infantile
thread has no place here on vortex-l.

A few posts would have been enough.  However, you are using plenty of
bandwidth in your age old hacknied flamewar.

At 9:19 PM 11/18/98, Keith Nagel wrote:
[snip]
>With >100 messages in my mailbox, I agree.
>
>By the way, most of those messages are coming from two people,
>can you guess who????
>
>Gentleman, for lack of a better phrase, this sucks.
[snip]

A quick count of the 100 posts to all vortex lists prior to the above post
by Keith Nagel shows:

M Swartz:   25
Rothwell:   10
Monteverde: 10

All other subscribers had fewer than 10.

I appreciate your scientific posts very much. Your flamewar really belongs
somewhere else.  Vortexb is a handy place to put it for those who might be
interested in it.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 04:50:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA07678;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:46:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:46:20 -0800
Message-ID: <001801be1483$72ac0520$8449ccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:42:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"U2GGI1.0.ut1.RIMLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24836
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dear Rick,

Now you see what happens when you engage Mitch. I have been through the same
gauntlet several times. Now he is friendly toward me, as one would be toward
a not-quite-qualified bystander.

Regards, Mike
-------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, November 20, 1998 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III


>Mitchell -
>
>  > It seems you are not since you think word-salad
>  > is a substitute for careful semiquantatition.
>
>"Semiquantatition"? Talk about word-salad! You take oil and vinegar with
that?!
>
>   >  You posts (and email) indicate you dont really take it
>   >  seriously by examining each issue and matter (part of
>   >  what SCIENCE is: ie. the study of categorized
>   >  knowledge).
>
>Whether my posts "indicate" that to you or not, it is certainly not the
case.
>
>   >  You have stated above you dont really understand what
>   >  was done, and you dont have a clue what the papers are
>   >  about.
>
>I don't KNOW (as opposed to understand) what exactly was done so I ASKED,
>hoping Jed or you would respond with actual answers. As to papers (yours?),
>no. I was referring to Jed's account of the actual experiment in question.
>
>Anyway, since you have begun to criticize me personally instead of helping
>to analyze or even address the specific points and questions I brought up
>about the topic here, I withdraw from this conversation.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 05:00:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA11396;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:58:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:58:30 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530507b27b18c3e3a8 [208.228.222.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:05:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Water Jets and Hydro-Microspheres
Resent-Message-ID: <"6bhrs1.0.-n2.sTMLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24837
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:11 AM 11/20/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>Thus if the Mossbauer Effect, where a bound proton or deuteron acts as
>though it's K.E. is the same as for the whole nanosphere, D2O (water jet)
>impingement on a Boron 10-Carbide "target" might get interesting if on
>impact a neutron "spalls" off of a deuteron and Fissions the Boron 10 to He4
>+ Li7 + 2.78 Mev.
>
>Regards,    Frederick

With the amount of excess heat suggested, plus 2.78 Mev energies, plus the
large neutron flux, there should be the "dead scientist" effect, which
doesn't happen.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 05:53:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA24262;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:52:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:52:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120085424.00830d30 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:54:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b27aafffd788 [12.64.35.230]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981120001611.00822c20 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a9991928d [12.64.35.94]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3EK6Z1.0.yw5.HGNLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24838
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:51 PM 11/19/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>I don't KNOW (as opposed to understand) what exactly was done so I ASKED,
>hoping Jed or you would respond with actual answers. As to papers (yours?),
>no. I was referring to Jed's account of the actual experiment in question.
>

 Rick.  After posting to you by email, you
were encouraged to handled this quantitatively.  Your choice to
avoid it, right?  
 Also the papers were on the web and available.

 That is not a criticism of you, but an observation.


   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 06:00:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA27664;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:59:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:59:32 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120090135.00825b80 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:01:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: My science posts are appropriate for vortex
In-Reply-To: <v01530504b27b08ed2b2a [208.228.222.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"D3Fi32.0.Am6.3NNLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24839
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 03:13 AM 11/20/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>Your flamewar with Jed belongs on vortexb.  Jed had the good sense to put
>it where it belongs.


  Jed did NOT begin his flamewar where Horace falsely states he did so.
Jed AFTER his attacks, attempted to divert the response to his lies
 to vortex-b.

If Horace does not like the scientific responses with facts
showing Jed was untruthful and inaccurate, then he should delete
my posts.  He certainly has that right.

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 06:04:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA29525;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:03:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:03:28 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120090528.0082d4a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:05:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
In-Reply-To: <001801be1483$72ac0520$8449ccd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"D9Evj3.0.AD7.mQNLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24840
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 07:42 AM 11/20/98 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote:
>Dear Rick,
>
>Now you see what happens when you engage Mitch. I have been through the same
>gauntlet several times. Now he is friendly toward me, as one would be toward
>a not-quite-qualified bystander.

  Actually, this is not quite true.  Mike Carrell is
a very scholarly writer.   He is qualified, and I enjoy reading
his writings and posts.  

  IMO, those who write for publications "owe" it to their readers
to push the limits for scholarship and accuracy.  Mike
has met those goals, and all here should get his writings in
Infinite Energy - which put out another good issue this week.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 06:44:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA08817;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:42:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:42:42 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981120144846.00ede77c 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, 20 Nov 1998 09:48:46 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Neutrons?
Resent-Message-ID: <"KtyfA2.0.h92.X_NLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24841
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Viktor Schauberger thought of neutrons, not as discrete particles, but as a
magnetic cement that resonates with the electric fields of both proton and
electron to form stable atomic structures. Under certain conditions,
electrons and protons of opposite charges and direction of spin are forced
into collision and annihilate one another (go to a higher dimension). The
glowing bluish - white discharge is supposedly this freed neutronic energy.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 06:47:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09654;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:45:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:45:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120094526.0082d4a0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:45:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - IV
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981119143339.0069d5d0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981119134508.00813100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119102502.00692b88 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0UWx3.0.iM2.i1OLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24842
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



 Part IV  Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" 


  Before responding to Jed's comments

in "III", several key questions were ignored

by Jed Rothwell.  These circa eight questions below

demonstrate possible internal inconsistency in Jed's posts, 

AND offer significant clarification when Jed Rothwell responds.   


   Mitchell Swartz


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


At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Mitchell Swartz asks:

>How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to test

>the temperature?

>

>Rothwell:  I never remove fluid from the cell. 

>I remove it from the return hose after

>it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would have
to

>turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell. 
Why

>would I do that?



  More "spinning-on-a-dime" [vide infra] which must be clarified,

but was ignored.


  1)  When Rothwell first published he stated it was to measure 'flow'.

Now he claims it was to measure 'temperature', proof of outpower, and

to dismiss Bernard instability. 


   Rick Monteverde wrote:

   "There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding

   measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this
to

   mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get

   entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into 
reporting

   that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it

   really isn't."

  Rothwell:

    This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, 

    THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out 

    of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a 

    thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.

    Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing 

    HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I compared the temperature of the 

    outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid

    in the reservoir.

   [Jed Rothwell <<JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>

    Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator

    Resent-Message-Id: <<"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs" mx2>]



  Which was it?  


  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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

</italic>

>	When you measured the temperature of the samples, the above states

>	that you did not remove the fluids from your temperature measuring

>	cup BEFORE each measurement.

>

>I do not understand this statement. How can you measure the temperature
in

>the cup after you dump the fluid back into the reservoir?!?



   It is what Rothwell stated:


  Rothwell:

    This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, 

    THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out 

    of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a 

    thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.

   [Jed Rothwell <<JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>

    Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator

    Resent-Message-Id: <<"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs" mx2>]


    Which is it?  were they mixed or not?



  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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


</italic>>	The description does not test mixing of any sort.

>

>I do not see how it does not. The temperature would change if the fluid
had

>not been previously mixed. If you assert that fluid is not mixed and

>thermal gradients exist, the only way to test that assertion is to mix
the

>fluid and see whether the temperature changes.


  "kilowatts", good.  Controls, bad,  right, Jed?


   What possible calibration, or estimate of relative

impact of Bernard instability, could a single point removal

of 250 cc of fluid indicate?   It is not?  If  you disagree

please write an equation with that as an input variable

that yields it.



  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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

</italic>


>	Jed claims that to remove a 1/4 liter had no impact on its removal

>	from the electrolytic cell. 



>I did not remo ve the fluid from the cell. I removed it from the 
outlet

>stream so it did not return to the reservoir for few minutes. This
affects

>the reservoir water level, not electrolytic cell.



  OK.  Jed states he removed 250 cc from what he states is a 40 cc
electrolytic

cell.  It was removed as it washed over then, taking with it presumably

solute and solvent.  Is this correct or not?


  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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


</italic>

>	The total volume of the electrolytic cell  was =    cc?

>

>40 ml as stated in the report. I do not know how much free space there
was

>in between the beads. I would estimate 10 cc. You could figure it out.


   40 ml in the cell.  And 250 cc was removed?


    MS: "Out of the electrolytic cell?"

    Rothwell:  "I am not sure what this means, 

    but I think the question is: Did I test a

    sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. 

    Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken 

    from the reservoir too, for comparison."

    [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com

      Jed Rothwell <<JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>

      Resent-Message-Id: <<"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]


   This does not compute except as stated above.

  Perhaps there were now 10 cc of electrolyte in the

cell.

  Now how much in the entire circuit?  And estimate 2000 cc?

   

  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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


</italic>>After the electrolytic and flow samples were taken (~500cc)
they

>were mixed and reinserted. to the electrolytic cell, OR the flow

>circuit?

>

>They were 250 cc each, not 500 cc. They were not mixed! They were taken
at

>different times, of course. Why would I mix them? 


   A good question.  Here is Rothwell stating they WERE

mixed,  at least by HIM, and possibly at least 

externally in his cup:


    "MS: Out of the electrolytic cell?

    Rothwell: I am not sure what this means, but 

    I think the question is: Did I test a

    sample of water from out of the electrolytic 

   cell. Answer: yes, and I tested another sample 

    taken from the reservoir too, for comparison.


     MS: From only one point in the cell, 

     or was it from a single point in a

	stream running through the cell?  

    Rothwell: The entire stream running through the 

   cell is diverted into the cup. ...


     MS: Did the flow calorimeter mix its 

     fluids with the electrolytic cell? 

     Rothwell: Apparently it did, because the outlet 

     thermocouple in the plumbing did

     agree with my measurement. *I* mix the 

     fluid in the cup, by stirring." 

  [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com

      Jed Rothwell <<JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>

      Resent-Message-Id: <<"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs" mx1>]


  Were they mixed together?  


  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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


</italic>

>If the flow was measured by uncoupling the circuit, thereby removing

>resistive obstruction to flow, it could not have been  tested in real

>time since the removal was purportedly testing the flow.

>

>With a flowmeter, flow is measured in real-time while Galileo's method
is

>used. That's the whole point: to verify flowmeter performance. 


  There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time

in THAT experiment.  

  If there was, please state the type and model number. 

   Which was it?


  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

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

</italic>

>Swartz: What was the total content of nickel in the cathodic portion of
the

>cell (cm3 or gms or #atoms)?

>

>Rothwell: I have no idea.

>

>Swartz: Then it was a dumb experiment where not even the volume of 
surface

>area of the cathode is calculable.

>

>Of course it is calculable! I'm sure CETI calculated it, but I did not.
You

>can calculate it if you like. As stated in my report, there were 40

>milliliters of beads. Each bead is 1 mm in diameter. Look up CETI's
patents

>to figure out how many milligrams of nickel and palladium are in each
bead.


  It is EITHER a resolvable "idea" by the experimenter, or

it is not.    Which is it?   And noone can do a better estimate

than the experimenter (Jed Rothwell in the cited case)


  [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]

<italic>

  

</italic>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 07:54:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA00665;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:50:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:50:56 -0800
Message-ID: <006c01be149c$fb742860$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jets  and Hydro-Microspheres
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:45:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sjs7J1.0.JA.W_OLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24843
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

Snip gibberish about Dead Scientist Effect.

The Neutron-Boron 10 ---> He4 + li7 + 2.78 Mev
reaction divides the 2.78 Mev between the Alpha
1.77 Mev and the Lithium 1.01 Mev.

The neutron if spalled off the Deuterium is rapidly thermalized by the D2O
from the Water Jet and absorbed by the kilobarn fission capture
cross-section of the Boron 10.

An aqueous slurry of DeuteroBoric Acid (D3BO3)might serve very well as a
"target".

A Water Jet moving at a kilometer/second doesn't come out of your nasal
spray, I hope. :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:03:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06163;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:02:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:02:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3656B8D8.5838354F ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 04:58:00 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz> <36542A67.1579@interlaced.net> <36555A4C.2ABDCD55@ihug.co.nz> <36548060.47A5@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CrTWV3.0.9W1.z9PLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24844
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



> The point is, you want to let the coil requirements AND YOUR ELECTRONIC
> RESOURCES aim you to the final design - don't freeze on voltages and
> currents too early - they may not be the best ones to use.

Well you are right there, I have just looked at changing the voltage and
amperage, I
am seriously looking at 15V   10A (still 150 watts) so I will need you
to
recalculate wire gauge and length, The transistor is a motorola 2N3716
which can
switch up to 80V 10A  150 watts, max. freq. is 1.15MHZ.

I guess I will wind it on a wood or plastic hollow core about 2 cm
diameter , it
will be a rectangular (I guess) solenoid.

I do not need a specific gauss strength as I don't know what will be
best and have
no way of knowing and there are no real forces on the coil.

to recap the current is pulsed DC and the on time will be from half the
off time to
one seventh the off time, that's from 50 watts to 18.57 watts going
through the
coil, I will run it from 50hz to tens of thousands.

I need to know yet again the wire gauge and length at the new values of
10A   15V,
And if my coil is likely to melt at 50-18 watts after an hour of use and
the best
way to snub back EMF.

Would putting a diode in parallel work fine? at high frequencies? How
fast would the
magnetic field collapse? What is used in high frequency devices?

I have decided to keep this on the list for now, any complaints?

Thank you,
John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:21:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13855;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:19:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:19:13 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:19:10 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: My science posts are appropriate for vortex
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120090135.00825b80 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981120080229.20352A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"fQJHU2.0.PO3.1QPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24845
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> At 03:13 AM 11/20/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
> >Your flamewar with Jed belongs on vortexb.  Jed had the good sense to put
> >it where it belongs.
> 
>   Jed did NOT begin his flamewar where Horace falsely states he did so.
> Jed AFTER his attacks, attempted to divert the response to his lies
>  to vortex-b.

For vortex-L subscribers who might be unaware, "Jed's" current flamewar
was started long ago on s.p.f (maybe here too?)  Mitchell and Jed have
been at it for YEARS.  Who started it?  As with any form of hatred, the
blame is on the participants, not the initiator.  Read their messages. 
See who indulges in verbal abuse, and you'll know who is creating this
flamewar.  If there was no verbal abuse being slung, if the participants
acted like civilized people and displayed respect for each other, then it
would be a debate, not a flamewar. 

As I said earlier, I'm not going to unsubscribe anybody for the time
being.  The rules are being revised.  If people want to behave
discracefully in public, I won't stop them.  I'll let you in on a secret
though: in the eyes of the bystanders, flamers don't hurt their victims,
they hurt themselves.


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:31:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA15625;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:26:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:26:09 -0800
Message-ID: <007701be14a1$e62c36a0$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Watlow Reference Files (http://www.watlow.com/ref/index.html)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:19:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE1466.D42EA900"
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: <"BQGaD.0.3q3.XWPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24846
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_004C_01BE1466.D42EA900
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For John Berry's coil heat loss calculations.

http://www.watlow.com/ref/index.html

------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE1466.D42EA900
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Watlow Reference Files.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Watlow Reference Files.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.watlow.com/ref/index.html
Modified=A03B3042A114BE01C1

------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BE1466.D42EA900--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:31:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA15653;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:26:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:26:11 -0800
Message-ID: <007801be14a1$e71ed400$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Heat Loss Factors and Graphs (http://www.watlow.com/ref/0303.htm)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:21:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01BE1467.31C78960"
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: <"qlkbR3.0.Uq3.ZWPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24847
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_0056_01BE1467.31C78960
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

More specific heat loss data for John Berry.

http://www.watlow.com/ref/0303.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BE1467.31C78960
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Heat Loss Factors and Graphs.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Heat Loss Factors and Graphs.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.watlow.com/ref/0303.htm
Modified=C0AA2EB4A114BE01C0

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BE1467.31C78960--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:32:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA17089;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:29:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:29:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120112750.0068ce94 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:27:50 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Power Gen message lost
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"yxYwj.0.sA4.QZPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24848
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I answered a number of the intelligent questions regarding the Power Gen
demonstration in a long-ish message which I posted last night.
Unfortunately, the message seems to of disappeared into the cybernetic
continuum, and I may not have kept a copy. That is discouraging. I do not
think I have the gumption to answer the questions again. Briefly:

The cell and reservoir had about 2.5 leaders of fluid as I recall.

The pump consumed about 25 wants. The pump is located at the bottom of the
reservoir in a typical aquarium pump configuration. Most of the 25 watts
waste heat goes into the air, but some heats the reservoir. This has no
effect on normal flow calorimeter calorimetry, which measures heat evolved
within the cell only. When I compare the temperature of the cup to the
temperature in the reservoir, the heat added by the motor pump motor
reduces my estimate of excess heat.

The pump always pushes the water around the loop; it cannot suck water from
the outlet.


Swartz has repeated a number of questions which I tried very hard to
address in previous  messages, as in this exchange:

>After the electrolytic and flow samples were taken (~500cc) they
>were mixed and reinserted. to the electrolytic cell, OR the flow
>circuit?
>
>They were 250 cc each, not 500 cc. They were not mixed! They were taken at
>different times, of course. Why would I mix them? 

   A good question.  Here is Rothwell stating they WERE
mixed,  at least by HIM, and possibly at least 
externally in his cup:

I never once gave the least hint that I mixing samples. What on does
"electrolytic and flow samples" mean, anyway? They are the same thing! As
everyone knows, in the CETI cell the electrolyte itself flows. I thought he
was referring to the sample from the outlet hose and the sample from the
reservoir . . . because obviously you must measure the temperature of two
different samples to establish the Delta T, as I stated over and over
again. Now I do not understand what he could be referring to.

But why on earth would anyone mix samples of water in this instance?
Whatever made Swartz think I would do this?!? I described the procedure in
excruciating detail, time after time, in message after message. Is anyone
else here confused about how I measured temperature, volume, and Delta T?!?
I do not think it is humanly possible to explain it more clearly than I
have done.

Elsewhere he asks repeatedly where in the loop I return the used sample. I
explained over and over that it is physically impossible to return it
anywhere but the reservoir: you open the top and pour the water in. The
rest of the loop is closed. If you opened a tube or the cell to pour in the
sample, you would spray dangerous lithium solution everywhere. This should
be obvious to anyone, and I have tried mightily to explain it, yet still
Swartz asks and asks, like some demented prosecutor who does not understand
simple English. The exchanges have a nighmare quality.

This goes beyond my experience & imagination. I wrote technical manuals for
25 years and I have dealt with hundreds of customers who did not understand
simple procedures, yet I have never met anyone who was so confused about
such a simple, direct, basic test to measure the temperature and volume of
fluid. I do not think Swartz is seriously confused. I cannot imagine he
truly wonders whether I mixed two samples. If he *is* confused, then he is
incapable of doing junior-high school level experiments.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:40:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA22272;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:37:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:37:39 -0800
Message-ID: <365599CF.B29739D fc.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:33:19 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields fc.net>
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz> <36542A67.1579@interlaced.net> <36555A4C.2ABDCD55@ihug.co.nz> <36548060.47A5@interlaced.net> <3656B8D8.5838354F@ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QotBe.0.vR5.JhPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24849
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi, John,

I missed the post outlining your requirements.

If you'd care to email me with your requirement, or repost it, I
might be able to help.

Also, you might consider posting your question to
sci.electronics.design.  A lot of sharp folks hang out there.

--

John Fields



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 08:43:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA24214;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:41:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:41:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120114137.007d4100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:41:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: My science posts are appropriate for vortex
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981120080229.20352A-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981120090135.00825b80 world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NtM3R2.0.Gw5.gkPLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24850
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 08:19 AM 11/20/98 -0800, William Beaty wrote:

> As with any form of hatred, the
>blame is on the participants, not the initiator.  Read their messages. 
>See who indulges in verbal abuse, and you'll know who is creating this
>flamewar.  If there was no verbal abuse being slung, if the participants
>acted like civilized people and displayed respect for each other, then it
>would be a debate, not a flamewar. 

  The issue always was, and should remain, the science.
It is true the P&F made misstakes, all experimentalists
(and everyone else) probably do, but cf was MUCH harder (and 
remains so) than expected. 

  Now there is no argument that Rothwell holds the
experimentalists the cause of cf fusion's problems.
However, the problem may be the experiments, materials,
impedance matching, physics, ...etc.  but it is NOT all of the
experimenters and scientists who perform them. 
 
 Now I know much less about Meyers, Mills, George and Soule and most of 
the other devices discussed here but cf has made me much more humble 
about what we THINK we know after examining it for a decade.  It is thus
irksome to see these good people who at least tried to wrestle 
physics for the commongood maligned by Jed (add in Fleischmann,
Mizuno, ..) based on what is not always what they claim 
they said (or so their writings appeared in the case of Meyers).  

  I enjoy reading Jed's materials when he elaborates and focuses on what
knows, and or did.  There is no hatred from this side. 
After meeting several of the people he has maligned, perhaps I have 
erroneously elected to attempt to correct his comments.

  Mitchell Jones' comments on the importance of truth in
common newsgroups also applies.  He had many good points about
which I had not considered.

   Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 09:13:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04665;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:10:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:10:44 -0800
Message-Id: <3655954E.A42A4826 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:14:06 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alien Photos on Art Bell Website (new documents)
References: <199811130050.SAA22698 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"otBap.0.p81.JAQLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24851
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I am going to post related issues on this subject to VortexB.
Regards,
hamdi ucar


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 11:27:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20723;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:25:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:25:57 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27b5d619423 [12.64.35.230]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120085424.00830d30 world.std.com>
References: <l03130301b27aafffd788 [12.64.35.230]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981120001611.00822c20 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a9991928d [12.64.35.94]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981119215212.00814340 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27a83806353 [12.64.37.44]>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.981119204522.15744D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
 <l03130300b27a5d8e78fb [12.64.4.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:22:21 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of Jed's "kilowatt" - III
Resent-Message-ID: <"a7Eyp.0.g35.59SLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24852
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -


   >  After posting to you by email, you were encouraged to
   >  handled this quantitatively.  Your choice to avoid it,
   >  right?

Right.

I do have this peculiar habit of avoiding unnecessary calculations (or work
in general) when it can be easily determined by simple analysis of the
situation that such calculations are not relevant. Would I mow a section of
lawn when I'm about to dig it up to put in a vegetable garden? Paint a wall
I'm about to tear out for remodeling? Get it?

You asked me how long it would take to boil the 10cc of electrolyte in the
cell. I indicated it didn't matter.

Jed reported a reservoir temperature of 35 deg C; Delta T required to boil
is 65 deg, so 10g * 65 = 650 calories. For joules use factor of 4.2 for
electrolyte instead of the 4.1 used for pure water:  650 * 4.2 = 2730
joules. At 1000 joules per second (watts) ignoring radiative and other
losses: 2.73 seconds. Would it actually take 2.73 seconds? Of course not!
There's electrolysis going on, bubbles, leakage and residual flow...Bernard
instability and stratification...    ;)  My point, in other words, is that
such analysis besides being irrelevant is ridiculous. We *know* it doesn't
actually take 2.73 seconds to do something we don't care about anyway.

Happy now?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 11:43:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA27913;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:41:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:41:32 -0800
Message-ID: <3655C62B.3F34 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:42:35 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz> <36542A67.1579@interlaced.net> <36555A4C.2ABDCD55@ihug.co.nz> <36548060.47A5@interlaced.net> <3656B8D8.5838354F@ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jBPuG2.0.vp6.hNSLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24853
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Berry wrote:
> 
(snip John's coil details)

John, it's good to post these requirements to the list, but, to be much
help to you, we need some stronger tools.
I mentioned this on the list a while back, but again, I know a source
for a circuit simulator program that is 340 kb or so long and runs in
DOS.  The point is, if you had this program on your computer, we could
exchange well-drawn circuit diagrams with coils, batteries, transistors,
capacitors, etc. - plus, we can try various coil inductances,
transistors, etc. with a variety of driving signals.  The software
calculates just what waveform you will get in the circuits.
I already have a circuit schematic that drives about a 1 milli-henry
coil at about 6200 Hz with a peak-to-peak current of around 3 or 4 amps.
This frequency is generated by a simple Colpitt's sine wave oscillator
but you could replace this with a pulse driver of your choice.
I could send you this circuit if you had the above software.
Let me know if you're interested in this approach.

If John is talking about a multi-layered coil here, it would help if
any Vortexians out there knew of a good formula to calculate the
inductance of multi-layered solenoid coils.  My "Ham" handbook stops at
single-layered coils.
(Estimating the inductance of the coils is important, John!)
When we get to heat rejection, Fred Sparber's links may help there.
Contact me via private e-mail for the software info.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 12:55:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24158;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:53:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:53:15 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27b803aac69 [208.228.222.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:59:56 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"v0_4Q.0.Jv5.xQTLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24854
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Somehow I lost this post in the mess.  Am short on time, but luckily ran
acrross it, becuase I wanted to reply.

At 12:34 PM 11/18/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Horace Heffner writes:
>
>     It seems far more likely at this point the overunity result is an
>     artifact due to the differing airflow in the GA testing facility, IMHO.
>     The ambient air flow must differ considerably between the NH and GA
>     tests.  It is most likely going to take a closed airflow plus a dual
>     method calorimeter to cleanly sort out the true answers.
>
>I do not think so.


However, it appears you are presently unable to determine this in a
controlled scientific way.  The local ambient conditions are too much
involved.


>Airflow and ambient temperatures are critical issues. I
>checked them extensively, carefully and repeatedly throughout the
>afternoon. I moved thermometers around the room searching for differences
>in the ambient air temperature. I did not find any as large as one degree
>Fahrenheit, except adjacent to heavy machinery and close to the kinetic
>furnace outlet duct.


It is recycled heat near the airduct that may be one of the primary sources
of an apparent overunity.  I am referring to heat that is recycled to the
input duct, and that which is exchanged with the environment and the duct
air flow prior to the exhaust temperature measurement location.  How well
insulated is the duct?  There is also the possibility of changing airflow
patterns near the duct walls - varying with wall temperature.

Of prime concern is the possibility of stable thermal gradients being
established near and in the *input* side of the duct.  The hottest
(recycled) air would be flowing in a return direction on the close outside
of the air duct.  This hot air would be taken into the duct toward the
outside edges, so would account for the largest volume of the input air.
It is especially  interesting that the flow patterns close to the warm
outside of the duct would tend to have the largest recycling volume.  It is
important to measure both air velocity and temperature profiles on both the
*input* and output sides of the duct.  This effect would tend to make the
"excess heat" slowly build due to the increase in ambient temperature very
close to the outside of the duct.  This temperature should grow much faster
than the full ambient temperature, however, as there is a low mass and the
air is somewhat confined in volume, and has a high recycle rate.  On means
to destroy this feedback loop is to simply put a big cross current of air
over the outside of the duct.  A large fan pointed at the side of the duct
in the GA installation should strongly affect the COP if this specific
hypothesis is true.


>In areas three meters away from the duct I saw no
>significant temperature differences. I looked carefully for a good spot in
>front of the kinetic furnace to measure ambient temperature. (By "in front
>of" I mean the area from which the kinetic furnace was drawing cool ambient
>air.) I finally settled on the warmest spot two meters away from the front
>of the KF that I could find. (A warm spot reduces the Delta T giving a
>conservative answer.) This turned out to be a mistake, however, because as
>I described it was too close to a heavy machine which affected the
>performance of the DTA4000 thermometer. I moved all ambient thermometers
>more inside the building, where the air was slightly cooler.


This demonstrates the sensitivity of the data to ambient conditions.  The
fact that the ambient conditions in NH and GA are *totally* different means
the results can be expected to be different.  A closed system of some kind
should work the same in both places.  It might be possible to make some
cheap air coolers out of auto radiators and insulte a closed duct system.
This would also permit water flow calorimtery on the cooling water -
providing the means for a double or even triple method calorimeter. You
could then avoid the need to degas the KF water for calorimtery purposes.


>
>Ed Wall was equally careful to measure ambient air at Bow. Weren't you, Ed?
>
>A flow calorimeter would be more reliable, but it is difficult to imagine
>that I made a 4 degree Fahrenheit mistake measuring the difference between
>ambient and duct air temperature. If ambient temperatures had varied widely
>over a short time span, I would not have conducted the test. I spent most
>of the three and a half hours I was there checking repeatedly for differing
>airflow and other ambient temperature  problems. I was walking around the
>room waving thermometer probes


Injecting humor into this at this point is probably risky or inappropriate,
but I can not resist noting that the above statement leaves you wide open
for a host of "armwaving" puns.  8^)


>like a guy dousing for oil. When ambient
>temperatures began to change rapidly as the sun went down, I terminated the
>test. (Well, also because I had to eat.)
>
>Despite the fact that the doors to the steel building were open, this was a
>good location to perform this test. The building is a large quite large,
>the air was quiescent and there was little activity inside -- just a few
>people working quietly on motors and the precision aluminum fabrication
>machinery. There were no large blowers or hot, heavy equipment in
>operation. The building was so large that the operation of the 5 kW kinetic
>furnace hardly affected the overall air temperature. It was like testing a
>model airplane in a quiet hanger -- something I have been  longing to do
>since I moved into this building on the grounds of the Peachtree DeKalb
>airport.


I am envious of your facilities.  Mine get shut down for the holidays
because we need the extra kitchen space.  My experiments are migrated to
the crawl space to avoid scaring the relatives.  8^)


>
>- Jed
>
>
>[BY THE WAY: Someone tell me off-line, is this message properly formatted
>to fit 80 column text? How about the indented paragraph quoting Heffner?]

Looks good on my end.  However, what the vortex list server does with this
response text should be more to the point.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 13:15:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31264;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:10:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:10:35 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b27b8904bd29 [208.228.222.178]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:17:19 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"gZzMN1.0.Qe7.BhTLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24855
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 1:08 PM 11/18/98, Ed Wall wrote:
>Jed wrote re KF testing:
>
>> Ed Wall was equally careful to measure ambient air at Bow. Weren't you,
>Ed?

OK, I get it.  I'm no longer confused.  Ed, I see you are just responding
to Jed's question.  Sorry I'm so slow on the uptake here.

>
>For all tests, at least two ambient temperatures were recorded.  One was
>recorded every 30 seconds or minute that was placed about two feet in front
>of the 'intake'.  The other thermometer was about 15 feet away from the
>unit and almost always read the same temperature.  The room was almost
>always closed for testing.  The ceiling is ~30' high and the room is large,
>so it took several hours to warm the air.  It seems silly to think about
>some coherent channel of warm air making its way from the exhaust to the
>intake that bypassed both thermometers.

The closest air will recycle the fastest.

>The exhaust was channeled 8' in a
>wooden duct (mea culpa: I stated 10' in earlier posts) and directed past
>some partitions where it struck another partition that diverted it up and
>sideways.

This should tend to warm the partitions above the ambient air temperature.
I am curious as to how this configuration compares to the GA tests.  Was
the same configuration, including wooden ducts and partitions, tested in GA
with much higher COP results?

As mentioned in another post, a big lateral air flow across the duct and
partitions should help reduce the heat feedback loop.


>I did not go to any further lengths because that thermocouple in
>front of the intake was calibrated and found to be within 0.1C of the
>others for almost the whole range of temperatures for this test, also, the
>results were not anomalous.

One temperature measuring location is not so good.  If you have to do that
it is better to measure toward the *side* of the input duct.  A cheap way
to improve the measurement might be to attach the thermocouple to the
center of a piece of sheet copper (or thicker steel or aluminum) oriented
parallel to the air flow and so as to average temperature across a cross
section near the outside of the duct.


>I will make more careful measurements in GA,
>including the use of 3 NIST-traceable Hg thermometers with 0.1F resolution,
>first to be used in thermocouple calibration, then for monitoring ambient
>air temperature.  I will also automatically record more ambient
>thermocouples near intake air.


The accuracy of the thermometers is not nearly as important as getting more
measuring  points.

>>
>> A flow calorimeter would be more reliable, but it is difficult to imagine
>> that I made a 4 degree Fahrenheit mistake measuring the difference
>between
>> ambient and duct air temperature.
[snip]

Sounds pretty easy to me, especially near the *edge* of the input air duct
if you have laminar flow in that vicinity.



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 13:23:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01584;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:20:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:20:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120151955.00af16ac mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:19:55 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
In-Reply-To: <3655C62B.3F34 interlaced.net>
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
 <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
 <36555A4C.2ABDCD55 ihug.co.nz>
 <36548060.47A5 interlaced.net>
 <3656B8D8.5838354F ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RNLEj2.0.gO.nqTLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24856
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 14:42 11/20/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>If John is talking about a multi-layered coil here, it would help if
>any Vortexians out there knew of a good formula to calculate the
>inductance of multi-layered solenoid coils.

I've got one, that has always been within 5% on a variety of coils
(air-core) we've made over the years.  If anybody wants it, I could send a
little .gif that shows it as Mathcad depicts it...or a Mathcad v.7 file
that contains it.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 13:31:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04479;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:28:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:28:59 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b27b8e31f454 [208.228.222.178]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:35:40 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"6pdxx2.0.m51.PyTLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24857
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A nominal donation for vortex in the past has apparently included access to
vortcor-list and vortexb-l in addition to vortex (either that or I haven't
contributed my fair share for the three lists.)  Since vortexb is
unlimited, and UFO stuff and other popular things are open there, the
subscriptions and message traffic might go through the roof.  I would
suggest a separate donation for vortexb-l.  Since there is a desire to
attract  busy scientists as contributors to vortcor-list, perhaps this list
should be paid for out of the vortex subscription donations?  Thoughts?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 13:45:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11233;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:43:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:43:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3655E2CA.4D5F interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:44:43 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Inductance Formula
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
	 <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
	 <36555A4C.2ABDCD55 ihug.co.nz>
	 <36548060.47A5 interlaced.net>
	 <3656B8D8.5838354F ihug.co.nz> <3.0.1.32.19981120151955.00af16ac@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LITXE1.0.Ml2.EAULs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24858
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
Frank: any Vortexians out there knew of a good formula to calculate the
> >inductance of multi-layered solenoid coils.
> 
> I've got one, that has always been within 5% on a variety of coils
> (air-core) we've made over the years.  If anybody wants it, I could send a
> little .gif that shows it as Mathcad depicts it...or a Mathcad v.7 file
> that contains it.

Hey, the .gif would be great, Scott!  Please send away!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 14:56:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09249;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:54:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:54:18 -0800
Message-ID: <01BE1495.96624DA0 uzl.ucdavis.edu>
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Donations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:53:50 -0800
Encoding: 23 TEXT, 42 UUENCODE
X-MS-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00
Resent-Message-ID: <"kwchm3.0.QG2.PCVLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24859
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace,
>A nominal donation for vortex...
[snip]

hmm... I think we may have an interesting problem in market dynamics 
here...

I've been donating annually, and would be happy to put up a separate 
donation for each; not sure though that I would want to donate to vortexb-l 
commensurate with its volume!

The only problem I see with vortexb-l being a separate paid subscription is 
that we want to _encourage_ certain discussions to go there... in fact, 
maybe that list should be free, supported by donations from those of us who 
would like to keep vortex-l and vortcor-l less cluttered.

Question: is it possible to make it so some people get read-only service? 
If so it would be possible to allow _anyone_ to listen, but only _paid_ 
subscribers to talk. Not sure where I stand on that. (And if the charge 
could be metered by the kilobyte... ;-)

Dan Quickert


begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(C,6`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0! `(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0 36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`' $```$````,`````P``, ,````+``\.``````(!_P\!````10``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'9O<G1E>"UL0&5S:VEM;RYC;VT`4TU4
M4 !V;W)T97 M;$!E<VMI;6\N8V]M`````!X``C !````!0```%--5% `````
M' `#, $````4````=F]R=&5X+6Q 97-K:6UO+F-O;0`#`!4,`0````,`_@\&
M````' `!, $````6````)W9O<G1E>"UL0&5S:VEM;RYC;VTG`````@$+, $`
M```9````4TU44#I63U)415 M3$!%4TM)34\N0T]-``````,``#D`````"P! 
M. $````"`?8/`0````0````````#,C,!!( !``X```!213H@1&]N871I;VYS
M`* $`06 `P`.````S <+`!0`#@`U`#(`!0!N`0$@@ ,`#@```,X'"P`4``X`
M-0`R``4`; $!"8 !`"$````V-$5#,T8V,D,V.#!$,C$Q0C<Y13 P03 R-$)!
M,38S-P`.!P$#D 8`M 0``!0````+`",```````,`) ``````"P`I```````#
M`"X```````,`- ``````0 `Y`+ AXJ/8%+X!'@!P``$````.````4D4Z($1O
M;F%T:6]N<P````(!<0`!````% ````&^%-BCV&(_['F QA'2MYX`H"2Z%C<`
M`!X`' P!````!0```%--5% `````'@`?# $````7````9&5Q=6EC:V5R=$!U
M8V1A=FES+F5D=0```P`&$!VSDTP#``<0I (``!X`"! !````90```$A/4D%#
M12Q!3D]-24Y!3$1/3D%424].1D]25D]25$584TY)4$A-34E42$E.2U=%34%9
M2$%614%.24Y415)%4U1)3D=04D]"3$5-24Y-05)+151$64Y!34E#4TA%4D5)
M5D5"144`````` $)$ $````N`P``*@,``-@$``!,6D9U#!D-@?\`"@$/`A4"
MI /D!>L" P!0$P-4`@!C: K <V5T[C(&``;#`H,R`\8'$P*#$C,3#V8T#WIH
M96S1`R!$;&<" 'T*@ C/'PG9`H *@0VQ"V!N9S$\,#,4( L*%"(!T"!(TP6P
M`-!E+ J%/AH,"J"-`V!T!9 %0$$ ;@-P$PN !T @9 (@871I+0(@( (0!<!V
M%T%E>$T:#2X $ J%6W,#`'!&70J%"H5H;6T@$2 022!T: N :R!WE&4@`,!Y
M(>!A=B+P;P.1"X =`!> <QXP&5 @,QS1`F!E;2/!(P%R:]L2`!W@>1VP'9!C
M!" 6(*<7H" 8"H5))R-Q8 GA)QWE)&$`<&YU!T!L>=HL(Y%D(M (8&PI@"?@
M22-!<' C,'1O)(!UZ05 =7 CD" 1\ JQ'B#+(O =^V4`T& ['6$%0)YS"' B
M\"* "&!G:")Q]QX (E$II'<`< 5 *I$=\^<M@2J@'L1B+0,@!: B`+\)\"U1
M*Z(#\"* (\!T!"!7'L *0 > (2$<5!8 (/\"("D@)(<B8!'P,54P""?@MRB#
M*T *L&DI@"U08@3TWQY"! `N!"+A+N9?"? %H/$Q$6=E7S"0!) !D"41\F0$
M`&-U!! >03?Q*J!>9RJ (H F5"4"9@#0=.\I0",1*@$N$VP$`"TQ+;'_*=0#
M4 G *4 M4"I0'M(IX7\C,!WV!" #4BV2$? S@&;[*O $('<ML"F5/4 E<"J"
M_R5P*V >M3!Q*6(>P 6A,'&[)- $$6,*0 ) ) %D)JWN40I0)#$"(#HWTC& 
M)(!_0' `D"3!*H(`P$'11I%SSRJ 2 `'@"2 96\+4"+PQSF0!4 7H&%D+3.3
M$?#D<G8F`&4_(E! P$ !KT:1*:=&RBD!;P?@7P!P?GD"(#FA*I$]0@GP*4!B
M^RK1,Y-?-L(YL#<5)^ 1X-,J @&0;&LB0$XM)D$0?R0!-%(!D"EQ'E$N$B) 
M*/Y!*7$&D#MB,) 1P3F0,)'?*<4' $2#/R)2LFL#$"2P1GD=`"(B.RTI(1Q$
M_P.11< F`"5P`" *AQP/'1(+(1P6P0!:< ```P`0$ `````#`!$0`````$ `
M!S# *V$VU12^`4 `"#"P(>*CV!2^`1X`/0`!````!0```%)%.B ``````P`-
'-/TW```=3!2^
`
end

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 15:33:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20688;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:31:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:31:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199811202329.SAA11321 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:33:05 -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: <"4rTrY2.0.135.WlVLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24860
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Horace Heffner wrote:

> This should tend to warm the partitions above the ambient air
temperature.

Is that a problem?

> I am curious as to how this configuration compares to the GA tests.  Was
> the same configuration, including wooden ducts and partitions, tested in
GA
> with much higher COP results?

No, the Cumming tests were done with a simple cardboard duct, just  few
feet long.  I have recently talked to Ralph about building an insulated
duct with a reflective surface on the inside, at least 8' long.  The
partition in Bow was incidental.
> 
> As mentioned in another post, a big lateral air flow across the duct and
> partitions should help reduce the heat feedback loop.

I tink that would seriously complicate the air flow measurements done with
anemometer and pitot tubes.  Any change in cross currents would change the
readings.  It would be hard to know where to stand because now there would
be two airflows that could not be perturbed during testing.
> 
> 
> >I did not go to any further lengths because that thermocouple in
> >front of the intake was calibrated and found to be within 0.1C of the
> >others for almost the whole range of temperatures for this test, also,
the
> >results were not anomalous.
> 
> One temperature measuring location is not so good.  If you have to do
that
> it is better to measure toward the *side* of the input duct.  A cheap way
> to improve the measurement might be to attach the thermocouple to the
> center of a piece of sheet copper (or thicker steel or aluminum) oriented
> parallel to the air flow and so as to average temperature across a cross
> section near the outside of the duct.

Yes, I wrote in earlier posts that we plan to use multiple intake
thermocouples.  I like the sheet metal idea, although it would have to be
rigidly mounted so that the effect on airflow would be constant throughout
all testing and calibration.
> 
> 
> >I will make more careful measurements in GA,
> >including the use of 3 NIST-traceable Hg thermometers with 0.1F
resolution,
> >first to be used in thermocouple calibration, then for monitoring
ambient
> >air temperature.  I will also automatically record more ambient
> >thermocouples near intake air.
> 
> 
> The accuracy of the thermometers is not nearly as important as getting
more
> measuring  points.

That depends on which skeptic is criticizing.  My purpose is not only to
establish whether or not it is working in my own mind, but also present
persuasive evidence to others and either save Scott Little a trip or give
him a good reason to travel to Cumming.  If I do present strong evidence,
we plan to further test it by submerging the radiator in an insulated bath
and perform calorimetry on that.

Regards, 

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 15:38:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25452;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:36:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:36:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120173605.0078dc78 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:36:05 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <199811202329.SAA11321 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4v_p31.0.aD6.MqVLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24861
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 18:33 11/20/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:

>...My purpose is not only to
>establish whether or not it is working in my own mind, but also present
>persuasive evidence to others and either save Scott Little a trip or give
>him a good reason to travel to Cumming.  If I do present strong evidence,
>we plan to further test it by submerging the radiator in an insulated bath
>and perform calorimetry on that.

You're doing all the good, Ed. When do you plan to go?



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 16:12:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA09810;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:10:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:10:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199811210008.TAA18278 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:13:00 -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: <"YxU1h3.0.9P2.BKWLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24862
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott wrote:
 
> You're doing all the good, Ed. When do you plan to go?
> 
Ralph is really busy with business and Thanksgiving for the coming week. 
I'be been busy doing Case cell runs.  I am also involved in a real estate
mess, so I'm a little nervous about leaving town.  We are now planning on
the 1st week of December.

Ed Wall
NERL


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 17:24:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03593;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:19:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:19:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199811210119.TAA28270 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:17:50 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"oAcbF2.0.-t.lKXLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24863
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>A nominal donation for vortex in the past has apparently included access to
>vortcor-list and vortexb-l in addition to vortex (either that or I haven't
>contributed my fair share for the three lists.)  Since vortexb is
>unlimited, and UFO stuff and other popular things are open there, the
>subscriptions and message traffic might go through the roof.  I would
>suggest a separate donation for vortexb-l.  Since there is a desire to
>attract  busy scientists as contributors to vortcor-list, perhaps this list
>should be paid for out of the vortex subscription donations?  Thoughts?
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{I agree with you Horace. Vortexb-l should pay its own freight and be
handled separately from the moderated lists. If Bill Beaty will post the
address to which contributions ought to be sent, and will confirm that the
$10 per year fee is correct, I will get mine in the mail tomorrow, and I
urge others who are committed to the principle of free discussion to do
likewise. --Mitchell Jones}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 17:28:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA06911;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:27:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:27:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981120192627.0099c100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:26:27 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Air-core Inductance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"uNPt5.0.rh1.oRXLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24864
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank, I decided to go with ASCII...

This formula comes from an electrical engineer's handbook that I don't have
anymore.  I have tested it many times by making cylindrical coils of
precise dimensions and then measuring their inductance.  The formula's
result was always within 5%, often closer.

                       0.315*(r^2)*(N^2)
              L =  ---------------------------
                    (6*r + 9*w + 10*d)*(10^4)

L = inductance in henries
N = # of turns in coil
w = width of coil (as viewed while winding it) in meters
d = depth of winding (i.e. radial thickness) in meters
r = average radius (i.e. inside radius + d/2) in meters

For a long solenoid, "w" would be the length of the solenoid.

All of the tests I made involved coils with small "w"...i.e. ultra-short
solenoids.  Thus I don't know how well this formula works for long solenoids.




Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 17:47:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13975;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:45:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:45:37 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981120204641.02cc44b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:46:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Water Jet Cutting
In-Reply-To: <001001be11b9$a3b199e0$a7b4bfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TIk83.0.HQ3.1jXLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24865
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:34 PM 11/16/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
 > Why not? Actually my interest is in whether or not that 2500 ft/second
(Mach
 > 2.5) water jet is producing any O/U.

   Actually, the water jet is subsonic internally, since the speed of sound
in water is several times that in air.  Supersonic liquid streams can be
created, but, if the liquid is inocmpressible, not with a nozzle.  (Well,
actually, one scheme that does work is to move the nozzle with respect to
the target...)  Supersonic water drops, which can be produced by charging
them and using electrostatic acceleration, are damaging enough that I
wouldn't want to work with a supersonic stream. 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 17:49:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15126;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:47:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:47:40 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Alloys
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:47:31 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <36581a25.186528138 24.192.1.20>
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: <"kCIzs2.0.6i3.xkXLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24866
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

Does anyone know whether alloys exist that have the same nature as
chemical compounds? I.e. fixed ratios of one metal to another, with
the various metal atoms taking up specific positions within the
crystal lattice. 
I get the impression that many alloys consist of irregular areas of
different metals just mixed together, but that on a microscopic scale,
large areas of metal exist that comprise individual pure elements.
I'm looking for the exact opposite, i.e. metals where no pure element
exists (an example would be doped semiconductors).

Net references to exactly what I'm looking for would be appreciated
(not semiconductors!).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 18:00:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08534;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <011a01be14f1$d0cb2280$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Water Jets and Hydro-Microspheres
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:53:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"K1IKr2.0.G52.5vXLs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24867
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

When you've had your breakfast Tea/Coffee,Norman. :-)

I calculate that a head of about 85,000 psi with an orifice of about 0.006
inches diameter will deliver a Water Jet D2O or H2O of about a cubic
inch/second at 3,280 feet/second
(1.0 kilometer/sec).

Seems that one could rig up a simple manual or weight/spring pulsed
hydraulic kluge for a test, no?

Regards,  Frederick






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 18:26:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA03161;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:24:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:24:45 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811210224.SAA28346 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: ddameron earthlink.net (Unverified)
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: dave dameron <ddameron earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
Resent-Message-ID: <"tYlu02.0.Fn.iHYLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24868
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello John and all,
,
At 02:42 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Francis wrote:
>John Berry wrote:
>> 
>(snip John's coil details)

It would be helpful if you find an ARRL handbook or other book with a copper
wire table to use with your designs. It has things like turns/inch, Ohms per
1000', weight, etc. and is very useful to me.
When I am doing coil calculations in my head, it helps to remember that
every 3 AWG gauges is 2X the cross-sectional area and current carrying
capacity (Every 6 gauges is 2X the diameter) No. 12 AWG wire is ~1/12 inch
diameter, you can figure on from there. For small coils or transformers, I
remember that No. 26 AWG gauge wire carries 0.5 Amp. 

>If John is talking about a multi-layered coil here, it would help if
>any Vortexians out there knew of a good formula to calculate the
>inductance of multi-layered solenoid coils.  My "Ham" handbook stops at
>single-layered coils.
>(Estimating the inductance of the coils is important, John!)
>When we get to heat rejection, Fred Sparber's links may help there.
>Contact me via private e-mail for the software info.
>
For a single layer solenoidal coil, I use
L= 2.54*N^2*a^2/(9*a+10*l) x10^-8H
a= coil radius, l=coil length in meters. N= number of turns.

The corresponding formula for multilayer coils is:
L= 2.03*N^2*a^2/(6*a+9*l+10*d) x10^-8H, where
a= mean coil radius, l= coil length, and d=coil thickness, all in meters.
N = total number of turns.
-Dave


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 18:55:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA18869;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:54:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:54:29 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be14fa$523a8920$4b729bce atlsjkcz>
From: "bull" <bulltek alaweb.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Alloys
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:54:53 -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 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"v_tPO3.0.lc4.bjYLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24869
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

some metal alloys are in a one compound ratio, most metal alloys have ireg.
crystal lattice, one ratio are rare and hard to find
-----


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 19:30:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA01085;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:28:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:28:04 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120125247.0069609c pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:52:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <199811202329.SAA11321 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"AZLsQ2.0.tG.3DZLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24870
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:

If I do present strong evidence,
>we plan to further test it by submerging the radiator in an insulated bath
>and perform calorimetry on that.

I think that would be a poor idea. It may cool the water too much. The KF
reportedly does not produce excess until the water reaches a critical
temperature. I favor Plan A: put the KF in a large, insulated box and run
water through a hose coiled inside it, or radiator coils, and do water flow
calorimetry.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 19:36:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03720;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:35:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:35:23 -0800
Message-ID: <3656353B.4C3C interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:36:27 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
References: <199811210224.SAA28346 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wAoVg.0.2w.wJZLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24871
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

dave dameron wrote:
> 
(snip dave's good tips and a SECOND multi-layered solenoid inductance
formula!)

Thanks, Dave, now, along with Scott's formula, we can  hold a
formula "bake-off"!  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 19:43:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06882;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:41:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:41:58 -0800
Message-ID: <365632C6.4EA9 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:25:58 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Air-core Inductance
References: <3.0.5.32.19981120192627.0099c100 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pVXmn3.0.Oh1.5QZLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24872
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snip most)

> r = average radius (i.e. inside radius + d/2) in meters

This means:   		inside radius  +   outside radius
			---------------------------------  ,  right?
					2

No need to respond if I have it right, Scott.  Just many thanks - this
is headed for a hard copy slipped into my "hambook".  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 19:46:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07395;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:43:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:43:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120123426.0069609c pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:34:26 -0500
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Power Gen memo (retry #3)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aEq2k.0.Tp1.IRZLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24873
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde asks:

     In the Powergen CETI demo, was the electrolyte volume going through the
     actual beads separate from the water being pumped to and from the
     reservoir, or was that all one and the same?

One and the same.


     What were the total volumes of the fluids in the whole system?

2.5 liters, as I recall.


     Also, when you lifted the outfall end of the cell output tube from the
     reservoir to fill your measuring cup, did you hold the outfall at a
     substantially different height level during this operation, or did you
     keep it at a level close to or identical with the former surface level
     of the reservoir?

We did low, high, medium . . . over and over. I distinctly remember Cravens
standing on a chair.


     Was the pump on the cell input side or the cell output side of the
     reservoir?

It has to be on the input side. It pushes the water through the loop. This
kind of pump cannot suck.


     At any time during your lifting the tube out to fill the cup, did air go
     down the tube to the pump . . .

Nope. And the cell was never emptied either.


     The pump is submerged in the reservoir, and seems to be at the very
     bottom under the filter in the photos.

Right. It is built in. That is aquarium pump. My guess is that it drew about
25 watts of the 85, but much of that heat went into the air, via the cooling
vents at the bottom.


     It looks like the cell output line goes in the top of the reservoir
     container and goes through the 2.5 meters of coiled area top.

That's complicated, and we bypassed it at times. That's the cooling loop for
the return. Someone suspected it might produce significant impedance, but it
wasn't enough for us to measure.


     Is that a tube connector mounted in the top where the line goes into the
     heat exchange section? Then that's where you pulled it off to fill the
     measuring cup?

After he soaked himself in lithium solution a couple of times (which is
dangerous!), Cravens built in a special cut off valve close on the cell outlet
to facilitate collection at this high flow rate. You position the cup and
twist two valves near the cell. The path is a little shorter than it would be
with the return to the reservoir. The usual method is to pull the hose out of
the reservoir and plop it into the cup.


     I'm still trying to see what Mitchell is getting at. I guess you could
     get a one shot overheating episode due to some effect occurring when the
     flow rate suddenly drops below it's average value. But that should
     disappear over time if the flow is steady, and I can't comprehend how it
     could persist in the teeth of a 250cc/minute flow rate over time.

I do not understand his theory, but he said the effect appears as a mixing
problem that directs a hot fluid stream to the thermocouple in the tube. That
is irrelevant; I did not use the thermocouple in the tube. I use my own
instruments outside the tube, with a huge sample of water; much more than the
cell can hold at any time. Even if the flow was unmixed back at the tube TC
location, it was well mixed by the time I saw it.


     John Schnurer asks: "How much heat from the pump and pump motor???" 25
     watts I suppose, but that is irrelevant. That would heat the reservoir
     (inlet) water before it reaches the cell. We measure outlet temp minus
     inlet. If the inlet is 5 deg C hotter than ambient because the pump
     heats it, that makes no difference. The only heat we detect originates
     in the cell.

Total input power to all instruments, power supplies and pumps was 85 watts.
Output varied from 300 to 1200 watts.


Back to Monteverde, who says:

     For the temperature readings to be unreflective of the true temperature
     of the electrolyte flowing through this system, there had to be either
     or both of an error in:

     * cell input temperature due to stratified flows (falsely colder than in
     reality)

We eliminate that possibility by vigorously stirring the reservoir and
measuring a large sample of water.


     * cell output temperature due to stratified flows (falsely hotter than
     in reality)

Again, we eliminate this possibility by taking a large sample, stirring it,
and measuring temperature.


     Jed reported that the probes were matched with mixers in the lines
     somehow, but I don't know the details.

Not matched -- I am not sure what this means. Mixers were installed. They were
rated for this size of tube and this flow rate. There is a handy table in the
Omega book.


     If the pump motor was adding a hot stream into the cell input line, then
     that would make the apparent heat excess smaller, not larger.

It would make no difference if you trust the inlet TC. If you depend upon the
reservoir temperature it would reduce the excess slightly because the fluid
cools 0.2 C by the time it reaches the cell.


     It must somehow produce a cold flow on the input temperature probe (or a
     hot flow on the output probe) to make it look like more heat was being
     produced than there really was.

And it must produce the IDENTICAL temperature in a large sample of water taken
out and stirred. That's the challenge!


     I'm still unclear on exactly where these thermometers and probes are
     located in the device, or of those locations make them prone to the
     kinds of errors Mitchell contemplates despite the mixers.

Following the circuit around:

2 Tcs in the tank
Inline stirrer next to the inlet TC
Cell
Another inline stirrer next to outlet TC

Plus externally, 1 TC, 2 thermistors, and 1 thermometer, which can be used
independently of the above.


     Bad flow rate measurement would skew everything, of course.

Yes, but they would have to be bad by a factor of 300 or 1000. The flow cannot
change from 1 liter to one drop per minute. You would see it, and hear it. You
could not miss it! That's a fantasy, like a 17 deg C gradient in the tank.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 20:11:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA19140;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:10:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:10:02 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981121041718.00eaaecc 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, 20 Nov 1998 23:17:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Alloys
Resent-Message-ID: <"8pb4g.0.gg4.PqZLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24874
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Silver - Gold goes into solid solution.

Dennis


At 01:47 AM 11/21/98 GMT, you wrote:

>metals where no pure element
>exists



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 20:32:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA27243;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:30:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:30:58 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981121043747.00ed44ac 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, 20 Nov 1998 23:37:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"X1h7f3.0.bf6.28aLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24875
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

How about looking for the blue glow?

Dennis

At 12:52 PM 11/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>If I do present strong evidence,
>>we plan to further test it by submerging the radiator in an insulated bath
>>and perform calorimetry on that.
>
>I think that would be a poor idea. It may cool the water too much. The KF
>reportedly does not produce excess until the water reaches a critical
>temperature. I favor Plan A: put the KF in a large, insulated box and run
>water through a hose coiled inside it, or radiator coils, and do water flow
>calorimetry.


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 21:04:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA05545;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:03:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:03:42 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811210503.VAA24139 swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: ddameron earthlink.net (Unverified)
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: dave dameron <ddameron earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Coil Question -Correction
Resent-Message-ID: <"wKuLS3.0.ZM1.kcaLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24876
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:24 PM 11/20/98 -0800, I wrote:
...
>For a single layer solenoidal coil, I use
>L= 2.54*N^2*a^2/(9*a+10*l) x10^-8H
>a= coil radius, l=coil length in meters. N= number of turns.
>
>The corresponding formula for multilayer coils is:
>L= 2.03*N^2*a^2/(6*a+9*l+10*d) x10^-8H, where
>a= mean coil radius, l= coil length, and d=coil thickness, all in meters.
>N = total number of turns.

After seeing Scott's post, I realized the coefficient in these formula are
wrong. The Wheeler formula's in inches anf uH were converted incorrectly to
metrics!

In English units (inches), Wheeler's single layer formula is

    a^2*N^2
L = --------- in uH.
    9*a+10*l

Where a = coil radius and l = coil length.

The correct formula (in meters)
    .394*a^2*N^2
L = ------------ *10^-4H
     9*a+10*l

These are correct to 1% for diameter/length <3
and are about 4% low for diameter/length =5.

For the multilayer formula, also from Wheeler,
the correct coefficient is .394*.8 = .315 as in Scott's post. When the 3
terms in the denominator, 6*a, 9*l, and 10*d are about equal, the formula is
good to 1%. The Radiotron Designer's Handbook has other formula for other
coil geometries.

-Dave

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 21:18:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA10390;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:17:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:17:10 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981120231747.009a1100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:17:47 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Air-core Inductance
In-Reply-To: <365632C6.4EA9 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981120192627.0099c100 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"88bGK3.0.6Y2.LpaLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24877
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:25 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>> r = average radius (i.e. inside radius + d/2) in meters
>
>This means:        inside radius  +   outside radius
>			--------------------------------- 
>					2
That's right, Frank.

Then Dave wrote:

>After seeing Scott's post, I realized the coefficient in these formula are
>wrong. The Wheeler formula's in inches anf uH were converted incorrectly to
>metrics!

Don't feel bad!  You should have seen me stumbling just to convert mine
from it's original form in which it produced millihenries when the
dimensions were in cm into it's present form.  It's only powers of 10, I
kept telling myself....

Thanks for the supporting info, Dave.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 21:47:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA22997;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:46:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:46:45 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981120234722.009b0100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:47:22 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Coil Question -Correction
In-Reply-To: <199811210503.VAA24139 swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fGxoY2.0.Ad5.5FbLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24878
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:03 PM 11/20/98 -0800, dave dameron wrote:
>
When the 3
>terms in the denominator, 6*a, 9*l, and 10*d are about equal, the formula is
>good to 1%.

A typical coil we've tried it on has a = 3", l = .2" and d = 1" so
6*a = 18, 9*l = 1.8, 10*d = 10,  and it still got within 2-3% (measuring
with a "video bridge"...a high-dollar LCR meter).


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 22:03:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA28389;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:39 -0800
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:54:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, free E <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Whistlers
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981121002443.17894B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"el1fY2.0.Ox6._TbLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24879
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo. and fre,

	[1]  Class

	There is a class of signals that goes by various names, including 
but not limited to;



	a] sferics
	b] natural radio
	c] fair weather currents
	d] ELF, VLF, LF

	In this class can be found 'whistlers'... other names include, but 
are not limited to;

	a] sweepers
	b] gurglers
	c] 'dawn chorus'

	[2]  TYPE, or nature

	As far as the TYPE of signal, this is varied and includes, but is 
not limited to;

	a] EM, or electromagnetic
	b] magnetic
	c] electric, or charge ... sometimes called electric field
	
	In general the guideline is all signals and types which fall 
within the audio frequency, or AF, range.  Some conduct work slightly above 
and below AF.
	For simplicity I will call them 'radio' ... although they can and 
do fall in the TYPE b and c categories.

	Basically most humans have no direct sensory connection to types 
[a] [b] and [c] ... but these signals can and do exist and are studied.  

	[3] Weather based  Broadband

	There is a very large body of work which encompasses AF, and the above 
and below AF and very broad band emissions associated with weather 
activity, notably lightning discharge.  Study and detection of the 
approach of storms and location of storm activity falls, often, in this type
of work.

	[4]  Earth and Space

	Activity detectable on Earth and based on effects from earth, 
from space, from the sun and sun activity and other complex effects
including but not limited to magnetic and particulate "storms", solar 
storms, magnetosphere, Aurora effects and so on are also studied and can 
be detected with instruments sensitive in the [2] TYPE section [above].
	
	NOTE:  NONE of the above is simplistic and it is strongly 
suggested you read books on the subject  [go to the library]


	Beyond this 'sort of common' work there are investigators who 
look to the unseen and unheard and detect and study the bandwidths 
described abbove, but carried as other forms from [2] TYPE .. these 
include, but are not limited to;

	a] optical emissions in many wavelengths
	b] mechanical or acoustic in and on land, sea and air
	c] transduction by living organisms.

	There are some seismic and astronomical investigators in this area.


	The point of this brief discussion is to try to point out a hug 
body of work that is little known by many, barely known in www land, and 
which can be found... not in data bases, but by reading and investigative 
research.  It is a facinating field I have been involved with for over 20 
years.  It requires open minds, thinking, ability to understand signals 
and signal acquisition.  There is a large amount of partial and mis 
information in the area.  It is well worth your time if you want to 'see 
and hear' the 'invisible' .... but requires dedication.

			JHS

	PS:  As may be seen 'whistlers' are a tiny... but very cool ... 
piece of the work.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 22:19:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00454;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:18:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:18:44 -0800
Message-ID: <36565B7E.714B interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:19:42 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Air-core Inductance
References: <3.0.5.32.19981120192627.0099c100 mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19981120231747.009a1100@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sZA_O.0.07.4jbLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24880
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks Dave and Scott.  We are as one on the inductance formula.
Darn, I guess I'll have to call off the bake-off.  :-(

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 22:48:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA09348;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:47:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:47:27 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27c106d8d9a [208.228.222.178]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:54:06 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"-1W9V.0.-H2.-7cLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24881
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:53 PM 11/20/98, Dan Quickert wrote:
>Horace,
>>A nominal donation for vortex...
>[snip]
>
>hmm... I think we may have an interesting problem in market dynamics
>here...

Right on.

>
>I've been donating annually, and would be happy to put up a separate
>donation for each; not sure though that I would want to donate to vortexb-l
>commensurate with its volume!

Well, it *is* voluntary.  And the more subscibers the more donations.
Personally, I would not be able to subscibe much of the time due to being
busy, but I must confess, a good SETI or UFO flap would probably get my
attention.  8^)


>
>The only problem I see with vortexb-l being a separate paid subscription is
>that we want to _encourage_ certain discussions to go there... in fact,
>maybe that list should be free, supported by donations from those of us who
>would like to keep vortex-l and vortcor-l less cluttered.

I see your point there, and agree for now, but I think an unmoderated list
for UFO type pop science will attract a gazillion subscribers. With the
demise of R. Daniel Woolman's "In_Search_Of" mega-lists there are
undoubtedly a bunch of potential subscribers looking for a new roost, and
sooner or later they are going to hear about vortexb.  Hopefully enough of
a percentage will donate to make it worth Bill Beaty's time.  If not, maybe
he could have an annual "count down" type drive like PBS.



>Question: is it possible to make it so some people get read-only service?
>If so it would be possible to allow _anyone_ to listen, but only _paid_
>subscribers to talk. Not sure where I stand on that. (And if the charge
>could be metered by the kilobyte... ;-)
>
>Dan Quickert


The main cost of a list is in the message *distribution*.  The authoring is
free.  This makes no sense.  If anything, the *contributors* should get a
discount, as they create the "product."   Unfortuantely quantity is not a
guarantee of quality.  8^)


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 22:57:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA12602;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:56:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:56:19 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b27c14f29d7e [12.21.208.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:03:07 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"woFpy.0.m43.JGcLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24882
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:17 PM 11/20/98, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{I agree with you Horace. Vortexb-l should pay its own freight and be
>handled separately from the moderated lists. If Bill Beaty will post the
>address to which contributions ought to be sent, and will confirm that the
>$10 per year fee is correct, I will get mine in the mail tomorrow, and I
>urge others who are committed to the principle of free discussion to do
>likewise. --Mitchell Jones}***

Great!  I hope this is OK with Bill Beaty.  I'm due to contribute for
vortex so I will send a couple donations also.  BTW the address is:


            William J. Beaty
            7040 22nd Ave NW
            Seattle, WA 98117
            USA

I hope to hear what Bill's intent is for vortcor-list donations, and which
lists he intends to keep.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 23:21:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA20513;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:20:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:20:54 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981121072757.00ee96dc 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: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:27:57 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"sarBN2.0.R05.MdcLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24883
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:54 PM 11/20/98 -0900, you wrote:

>The main cost of a list is in the message *distribution*.  The authoring is
>free.  This makes no sense.  If anything, the *contributors* should get a
>discount, as they create the "product."   Unfortuantely quantity is not a
>guarantee of quality.  8^)

Perhaps those who do not contribute their thoughts should chip in? As for
myself, I'm trying to put together $6,000.00 to buy a certain most honored
professor's books. So I'm kind of broke at the moment.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 23:23:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21226;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:22:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:22:03 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b27c1a02cdd2 [12.21.208.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:28:47 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"rScUn.0.TB5.QecLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24884
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:33 PM 11/20/98, Ed Wall wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> This should tend to warm the partitions above the ambient air
>temperature.
>
>Is that a problem?


No just a deduction looking for confirmation and food for though in future
tests.  If you noted in the past that the partitions got warmer then this
would confirm the hypothesis.


>
>> I am curious as to how this configuration compares to the GA tests.  Was
>> the same configuration, including wooden ducts and partitions, tested in
>GA
>> with much higher COP results?
>
>No, the Cumming tests were done with a simple cardboard duct, just  few
>feet long.  I have recently talked to Ralph about building an insulated
>duct with a reflective surface on the inside, at least 8' long.  The
>partition in Bow was incidental.

Less insultion and a shorter feedback path.  A surefire formula for a
higher apparent COP.


>>
>> As mentioned in another post, a big lateral air flow across the duct and
>> partitions should help reduce the heat feedback loop.
>
>I tink that would seriously complicate the air flow measurements done with
>anemometer and pitot tubes.  Any change in cross currents would change the
>readings.  It would be hard to know where to stand because now there would
>be two airflows that could not be perturbed during testing.


I was assuming the airflow would be measured inside the duct system.
Accurately measuring outside the duct sounds difficult to impossible.

Thanks for responding.  I know you are busy.  I'm just trying to give you
more food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 23:35:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25568;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:34:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:34:34 -0800
Message-ID: <36566D0D.54E8 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:34:37 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact  11.20.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7ViA-1.0.QF6.9qcLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24885
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
11.19.98
      Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:06:26 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms

>Rich Murray comments:  I am very grateful to finally receive some
>critical discussion of my little lily hypothesis.  My hypothesis assumes
>that impurity Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti are concentrated by normal
>electrodeposition at any rough microspots on the Au cathode, produced by
>deliberate scraping with a sharp glass edge before the run.  So, I then
>assume that these impurity metals load substantially with H or D during
>electrolysis.  A 50 % loading, I calculate, is enough to cause an
>attached very small bubble of O2, to react catalytically with the metal
>spots to cause melting and foaming.

--Let�s examine this proposed model in more detail.  

Rich assumes that a mixture of various hydride forming elements
concentrate at sharp points on the surface. 

While sharp points will attract electrodeposition, experience has shown
that electrodeposition also occurs over an entire surface.  Otherwise it
would be impossible to achieve a smooth electroplated coat on normal
material. It is difficult to predict the hydrogen content of the complex
mixture.  Some of the impurities such as Pt, Os, and Ni dissolve very
little hydrogen. At best, this deposited mixture would be a poor source
of hydrogen.

Rich assumes that oxygen is supplied to the surface as small bubbles
which react with the dissolved hydrogen. 

For recombination to occur, the hydrogen and oxygen must be mixed.  This
mixture is either within the gas bubble or it occurs as absorbed atoms
on the surface.  If it is mixed in the gas bubble and a recombination
reaction is initiated, the bubble will explode and the resulting energy
will be dissipated as heat and a shock wave.  This process can not cause
local melting.  If the mixing is on the surface, the rate of the process
is controlled by the speed at which oxygen and hydrogen can reach the
surface, combined with the rate at which the resulting H2O can leave, so
as to provide room for more H and O. Since the environment is surrounded
by water, this leaving reaction is slow. This is one reason why
recombination on a surface within water is slow even under ideal
conditions such as when activated Pd or Pt is used.

I should point out that when fully loaded Pd is heated in air, where the
reaction is fast, the rate of heat production is insufficient to even
get close to the melting point.  If an ideal condition will not come
close to achieving the needed temperature, how can we expect a much less
ideal condition to succeed?

Rich assumes the reaction to be so fast that conduction is not
occurring.

The reaction rate is limited by the area of available active sites. As a
result, for any significant recombination to occur, a large area is
required.  This large area makes it easy for the resulting released
energy to be conducted to the metal and water.  There is simply no
mechanism which can concentrate the energy as required by Rich.--

>I assume that this happens so quickly in a microbubble that heat losses
>from conduction, convection,  and radiation are not important.  The
>reaction zone would be shielded from the liquid by the bubble itself,
>just as a drop of water will skid around on a hot metal surface,
>floating on a thin layer of trapped steam on its bottom surface.

--This is not a good analogy.  For a reaction to occur, the oxygen and
hydrogen must mix. A layer of trapped steam would slow down this
mixing.--

>You mention in your other posts today that some bubbles of O2 do indeed
>reach the cathode in electrolysis experiments. My hypothesis needs only
>2-3 microbubbles per second to produce in 30 days the ~10 milligrams of
>mostly Au precipitates, reported by Mizuno.

--And you also need to assume that local heating will cause a local
explosion of released hydrogen to drive the gold off the surface.  For
gold, which does not dissolve hydrogen, this mechanism does not exist. 
You might argue that some of the deposited hydrides might be driven off
by this process but this is not what is observed.--

>Note, I offer at the end of my hypothesis a number of concrete
>suggestions for simple tests that could falsify the hypothesis.  Since
>Mizuno's claim that the micro-volcano structures can be only accounted
>for by nuclear reactions is so radical, and so potentially extremely
>valuable as an easily replicable proof of CANR, it is essential to
>falsify my hypothesis experimentally.  

--I would be willing to attempt a test of a model which has some reality
to it.  Rich's model fails this test up front. I suggest that anyone
knowledgable about hydrides and catalytic reactions will agree with this
assessment.--

>If Mizuno's extremely simple
>result is indeed valid, why hasn't it been widely replicated, years
>later?  

--This is an entirely different kind of question.  People are trying the
experiment and gradually an experience base is accumulating.  As you can
imagine, finding people willing to repeat the experiment and publish
such results takes time.--

>This would be confirmation of a revolutionary phenomenon in
>CANR.  Have groups attempted to replicate, and failed, as with several
>attempts in the Arata & Zhang excess heat and helium claim with Pd-black
>inside Pd cathodes?

--Failure of any experiment can be explained in several ways.  In this
field, skeptics assume failure results because errors were eliminated
and the truth was discovered. On the other hand, an equally good
explanation is that the experiment was not done properly - the original,
necessary conditions were not duplicated.  A choice between these two
approaches requires many attempts during which the important issues are
properly acknowledged.  In this case of Arata & Zhang, this process is
still underway.--    Ed Storms

[Comments by Rich Murray]  For me, the essential and exciting core of my 
hypothesis is that 2-3 very minute microbubbles [10E-7 cm3 volume each]
of O2 per second, for 30 days, a million events, that each attach to and
react hotly with a 50% H2 or D2 loaded impurity spot of a number of
metals, found in fact by Mizuno and Ohmori, Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti,
which are all known in CANR research to substantially load with H2 or
D2, and are to some degree catalytic of the very energetic cumbustion of
100% concentration O2 [air is only 21% O2 concentration] and H2 into
H2O, will generate enough heat from the H2 content of a 5X10E-10 cm3 of
Au metal, about 500 times less volume than the O2 microbubble, for each
bubble to heat that much gold to melting, whereupon the absorbed H2 gas
would expand the metal into the observed micro-volcano structures,
creating about the observed total of 10 mg of Au foam deposits, and
taking only 2 joules of the input energy to do this, about the same
energy that heats a tiny tungsten filament to incandescence in a
flashlight bulb, just 1 part in 20 million of the input electric
energy.  In summary, a chemical hypothesis of some sort is reasonably
very likely to explain the existence of the Mizuno-Ohmori micro-volcano
structures and deposits.

I am not claiming or denying the possible role of metal hydrides, but
merely relying on the well-known capacity for these metals to absorb H.
It doesn't affect the scenario much if the loading is 10% or 100%.  The
scenario isn't very different if much of the H is absorbed into cracks
and channels inside the metal deposits and the gold itself, which are
phenomena that Storms has diligently studied in Pd for years.  As Storms
points out, Au itself does not absorb H2, so whether the reactions are
nuclear or chemical, there must be involved some initial absorption of
H2 or D2 into impurity deposits or into cracks, channels, and defects in
the Au.

If the active region is a micro-peak or micro-filament, then the
resulting concentration of localized input electric current will
probably create enough joule heating to initiate combustion, so there
may be no need to invoke the catalytic properties of the metals.
Whatever the details of H2 absorption into impurities or into the Au,
then an attached O2 microbubble can only react with the H at the surface
of the metal, creating a burning zone that will suffice to very quickly
melt more metal and expose and liberate more H as the metal becomes a
high surface area foam.  I trust that in the O2 microbubble the ordinary
diffusion of O2, H2, and H2O, as the temperature rises, will be fast
enough to ensure the continuation and acceleration of a fast burning,
but non-explosive process.  I trust there will be a long enough burn for
each microbubble to substantially heat the underlying Au, since the
Mizuno-Ohmori micro-volcanos are in fact mostly Au. Only the very tiny
area under each microbubble, 2-3 events per second, is heated. The
details must be quite complicated, and would deserve the attention of an
expert on near-explosive combustion processes.  The burning region would
be insulated from the rest of the electrolyte by the presence of the
remaining unreacted O2 microbubble. Once the O2 bubble was consumed,
then direct contact with the electrolyte would quench the foaming metal,
leaving the characteric well-formed, hideous lily volcano structures.

If my scenario is roughly right, then there should be little difference
between H2 or D2 in producing the micro-volcanos.  This would be a
strong confirmation that the reactions are chemical, not nuclear.  Also,
the Au surface may be playing a unique role in promoting the formation
of micro-volcanos, because its extreme ductility and relative chemical
inertness at near melting temperatures is necessary for a metal foam to
form.  Has Ag or Al been tried?  They would probably form insoluble
oxides.

Mizuno-Ohmori's mass spectroscopy is certainly too imprecise to prove
that the impurities in the Au foam are isotopically anomalous nuclear
transmutation products.  Last month's Discover magazine has an article
on a huge mass spectrometer at a California university that has the
power and precision to separate isotopes accurately from complex minute
samples.  For instance, it was used to show that the isotopes in
putative micro-fossils from a Martian meteorite were not characteristic
of plausible organic chemistry.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 20 23:55:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA30049;
	Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:52:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:52:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b27c21f7ac73 [12.21.208.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:59:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: Donations
Resent-Message-ID: <"zomXI3.0.RL7.y4dLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24886
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:27 AM 11/21/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>Perhaps those who do not contribute their thoughts should chip in? As for
>myself, I'm trying to put together $6,000.00 to buy a certain most honored
>professor's books. So I'm kind of broke at the moment.

Well, for vortex it is a voluntary contribution, based upon subscription
only.  If you subscribe but don't contribute you should feel the fickle
finger of guilt, guilt, GUILT!  8^)  BTW, I'm one of those people who
actually pays for shareware.

Gee, come to think of it, I sure could use a garage...

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 00:02:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA15521;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36567221.2575 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:56:17 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Shanahan: Blue: band state theory  11.20.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pF-et.0.Ro3.1DdLs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24887
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
      Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:53:06 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Kirk,

     Thanks for writing!

You wrote:
     
>     I have been paying some attention to the discussion between you and 
>     Dick Blue, with participation by Ed Storms, and I have a couple of 
>     questions for you if you don't mind.
>     
>     It seems to me that the picture of CF you paint is quite different 
>     from that presented by Ed Storms.  In particular, Ed uses
>the           concept of 'special states of matter' that are present at
>very low      levels in relation to the bulk, and thus are very hard to
>detect.       

     Actually, what Ed Storms and I are saying is really very similar. 
In particular, the "special state" of matter that we are suggesting is
involved occurs through the occupation of ion band states.  These states
have wave-like properties that are very special, which allows them to
interact in a nuclear fashion.  These states have their greatest effect
when they extend throughout the lattice, but even when this is the case,
their densities are always very low inside the lattice.  Possibly, most
importantly, although they interact with each other inside the lattice,
their interactions result in energy release to the environment in areas
where lattice imperfection is present (for example, at cracks and
interfaces).  For this reason, although they may extend throughout the
lattice, their effects are primarily observed at the boundaries of the
lattice.

>He also supports the idea that these 'clusters' (my term)
>occur         primarily on the surface.  


In fact, as I just said, the locations of energy release occur at the
surface, even for large lattices.  Also, an important point is related
to crystal size.  The optimal lattices probably have only between 100
million and 1 billion unit cells.  This translates to crystals that are
roughly a micron on a side.  And these lattices may be embedded inside
larger crystals.  In other words, your 'clusters' can actually
correspond to reasonably large lattices.

>     I am no quantum mechanicist, but I think I have a general 
>     understanding of what is you are proposing.  
>     (Please correct me if I am wrong!)  It seems to me that your 
>     theory uses a bulk solid state to explain CF.  You are using 
>     bands and band theory and talking about the periodic
>potentials         needed to allow coherent effects to become
>important.  

The "band theory" is not entirely "conventional," in the sense that only
a very limited set of people have applied "band theory" to the problem
of hydrogen occupying ion band states.  (But it is worthwhile noting
that a Finnish group, headed by Nieminen and Puska have done this, as
have an Italian group, headed by Astaldi.  Also, a group at NIST has
done this.) The point is that conventional "band theory" has been
applied to electron, but only recently (and fairly rarely) to hydrogen. 
The reason is that only within the last 15 years has it become very
apparent that hydrogen "behaves" in a wave-like fashion similar to the
way electrons behave in metals.
     
>     I assume that the computational techniques you employ 
>     assume infinite 3D periodicity.  If that is true I would
>     expect that there would be severe modifications to your
>     'view' when a finite-sized 'cluster' of the 'special state 
>     of matter' was used as the computational basis in 
>     your approach.

In fact, this is not true.  The importance of periodic order can
manifest itself in 1-dimension, 2-dimensions, and in finite clusters.  I
am a surface scientist (as well as a condensed matter, many-body
theorist), by training.  The codes that I have used employ are used to
study surfaces. These codes assume 2-dimensional periodicity and
probably are optimal for investigating ion band state occupation.

>     
>     In 'normal' quantum chemistry, I believe the change observed is the 
>     eventual decomposition of bands into localized molecular
>orbitals,      and I also seem to recall the transition between the 
>     two regimes is still not made easily.  
>     
>     Is this correct?  

You are correct about a number of important aspects of the approaches. 
It is difficult to identify quantum phenomena associated with periodic
order, based on 'normal' cluster models.  In the surface science world,
what is typically done is thin film is constructed to perform the
calculation. This film is composed of layers that are "infinite" in
extent in two-dimensions, but the film has finite width.  For transition
metal systems, d-electrons typically provide sufficient screening so
that only a small (less than 10) layers of material are required before
the "thin film" electronic structure begins to mimic the bulk.

>       What happens to your theory as you
>     shrink the size of the lattice from infinity down to 
>     microscopic sizes, and then further to the dimensionality
>     of a few 10's of atoms diameter?  

In fact, the codes I have referred to would really be required to
understand the behavior of relevant numerical quantities (such as the
chemical potential of the deuterium and the Fermi energy of the
elctrons) 
and to infer critical loading conditions.  The associated calculations
are computationally intensive, and we have not be funded to perform them
yet.

But we have been able to infer important insights about the existence of
band states and their role in the Cold Fusion process, using more
approximate calculations, in which we have not required that periodic
order of any sort be infinite in extent.  They we have done this is by
smoothly matching the "infinite" lattice states onto suitable
non-band-like states at the "boundaries" of the solid and investigating
the effects of perturbations of the matching conditions.

These calculations reveal that a "critical" volume of ~10^4 unit cells
is required in order for overlap between ion band states to occur.  In
volumes of smaller size, no overlap and no fusion is ever possible.  In
larger "crystals", overlap and Cold Fusion are possible.

>     Further, what effect would restricting your periodicity by
>     imposing a surface (i.e., truncating periodicity in 1
>direction)        have?
>     
>     Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}}

As you will have seen from my comments, we have done this.  In fact, the
"surface" plays a key role in energy release!

Thanks for your insightful questions.    SCOTT CHUBB

Subject: Re: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
      Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:04:58 -0500
      From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Dick,

     Please try to look at what is being said, prior to responding
vacuously. I am beginning to find your comments tiring.  I have
"gleaned" some insights from the discussion.  But it appears your
comments our now degenerating into a tirade.  Note the following from my
last two comments:

1.  The lattice does not have to be perfect!

2.  The deuteron ion band states only interact with themselves; which is
where approximate periodic order is required!

3.  The idealization of T=0 is not required!

4.  Please try to read before you blurt out meaningless comments!

5.  Please try to do science, instead of pontificating!

6.  Please look at my comments to Kirk Shanahan, and my comments to you!


     The reason, I feel obliged to make these comments is in response to
the following, unscientific assertion by you (in response to Kirk
Shanahans thoughtful comments):

>Once again Kirk Shanahan has picked up on something very significant,
>I believe, to this discussion.  That is the clear divergence between
>the picture presented by Scott Chubb and what Ed Storms is now
>indicating as his view of CANR.
>
>If you believe that the process is cold fusion initiated by some
>form of quantum coherance appropriate to the conditions of a
>perfect lattice at T=0, that is what Scott Chubb has been considering.
>Of course, the experimentalists have been at work gathering evidence
>which tends to call much of Chubb theory into question.  Thus as
>Ed Storms attempts to synthesize something from the divergent
>results from a variety of experiments what he has come up with
>has less and less connection to the Chubb picture.  Storms is
>now suggesting something akin to a (d, alpha) reaction involving
>a yet to be specified "impurity" with the cathode surface
>conditions playing, it seems, a more significant role than the
>bulk material.  Those surface conditions simply are not addressed
>by anything in the Chubb theory; and, I should think, all prospects
>for having lattice symmetries dictate the outcome of reaction
>process fly out the window.
>
>It now seems that neither Chubb nor Storms can gain much comfort
>from what the other has to say on this subject.
>
>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 00:23:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA06509;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:22:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:22:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981121082947.011b551c 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: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:29:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"nIgL01.0.Vb1.4XdLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24888
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Sorry for the delay. The evil landlord is going to try to finish us off in
another week so I was concentrating on law stuff.

At 10:51 AM 11/16/98 -0900, you wrote:
>At 10:03 AM 11/15/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>[snip]
>>I have not noticed a response to my suggstion of David Hudson's
>>monatomic superconducting phase collapse transmutation from critical
>>magnetic field over saturation as a source of unexpected elements and
>>nuclear particles.
>
>Insufficient information has been provided for comment. With only this
>limited amount of information it just sounds like a bunch of undefined or
>improperly used buzz words.  If you flesh it out for us some might be
>willing to comment.
>

Here is a quote from one of David Hudson's seminars.

_________________________________________________________________________

>we got a copy of Pons & 
>Fleischman's paper before they publicly announced. It was sent to 
>GE for their review. It was their electric chemical catalyst 
>division who works with Palladium. They handed it to me and said, 
>"Dave, look here. What's coming out here?" Pons and Fleischman 
>were putting a Palladium electrode in this Lithium Deuterate 
>solution. Lithium is the third element on the Periodic Table. 
>Lithium will dissolve into the Palladium just like Hydrogen. It's 
>tiny and it goes in between the metal-metal bonds, just like 
>Hydrogen, and it weakens the s-p bonding and little by little, 
>the Palladium begins to disaggregate from the other palladium 
>atoms and go to the high-spin state. What they have reported is 
>that after several days, there is this tremendous release of 
>energy and it's more energy than the amperage that went into the 
>sample. What they haven't figured out is that a superconductor 
>feeds on the magnetic field, not on the amperage. And so 
>literally, when they pull the voltage potential in it, there's  
>no amperage flowing. The amperage only puts the Lithium into the 
>Palladium. That's the only purpose of the amperage is to 
>electroplate the Lithium onto the Palladium and cause the metal-
>metal bonding of the Palladium to break and form what Pons and 
>Fleischman call, and this is their scientific technical term, 
>"the white crud on the surface of the Palladium." And that white 
>crud is the superconductor. And it literally builds up energy. 
>Builds up energy. Kind of like you think of a capacitor building 
>up energy. It's flowing more and more light and it's feeding on 
>the magnetic potential. More and more light, more and more light, 
>until it reaches what's called HC2, the greatest amount of 
>magnetic field that superconductor can sustain. and at that 
>point, it collapses.
>        In another paper it says "We will find 
>that a superconducting material like Palladium is going into a 
>state that is much like superconductivity when it causes the cold 
>fusion reaction."  And they're figuring this out. They're seeing 
>what 1 am describing,  but they don't understand this, yet. 
>Palladium specifically can become superdeformed. Palladium will 
>come apart by just looking at it wrong. So certainly 'when this 
>flux collapse occurs, you'll get all sorts of elements that 
>shouldn't have been there before. 

http://monatomic.earth.com/

Well people, what do you think? I say this is it. This is how you get the
weird particles. It took over 5 million bucks (as I recall) in research to
discover monatomics. Comments?
_________________________________________________________________________




>                     THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS
>
>                       Horace Heffner  12/30/1996

(snip)

You were definitely running on all eight cylinders writing this Horace!

Best Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 05:32:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA19988;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:30:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:30:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3656C07B.8B286C7B ping.be>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:30:35 +0100
From: Robert HOFFMANN <R.Hoffmann ping.be>
Reply-To: R.Hoffmann ping.be
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: The Newman's Energy Machine: FIRST OVERUNITY Results
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pKWPO1.0.Eu4.N1iLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24889
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Very interresting update on the site of J-L Naudin

http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 07:20:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11458;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199811211511.KAA15841 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:59:32 -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: <"svMob2.0.yo2.VYjLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24890
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Dennis C. Lee <atech ix.netcom.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
> Date: Friday, November 20, 1998 11:37 PM
> 
> Hi;
> 
> How about looking for the blue glow?
> 
> Dennis
> 
In good time, we will.  First, we must make sure it is doing something
interesting before disturbing it in any way.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 07:20:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11538;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:46 -0800
Message-Id: <199811211511.KAA15845 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:15:09 -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: <"mOBdN.0.vp2.eYjLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24892
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Horace Heffner wrote:

> >No, the Cumming tests were done with a simple cardboard duct, just  few
> >feet long.  I have recently talked to Ralph about building an insulated
> >duct with a reflective surface on the inside, at least 8' long.  The
> >partition in Bow was incidental.
> 
> Less insultion and a shorter feedback path.  A surefire formula for a
> higher apparent COP.
> 
> 
> >>
> >> As mentioned in another post, a big lateral air flow across the duct
and
> >> partitions should help reduce the heat feedback loop.
> >
> >I tink that would seriously complicate the air flow measurements done
with
> >anemometer and pitot tubes.  Any change in cross currents would change
the
> >readings.  It would be hard to know where to stand because now there
would
> >be two airflows that could not be perturbed during testing.

> 
> 
> I was assuming the airflow would be measured inside the duct system.
> Accurately measuring outside the duct sounds difficult to impossible.

It is measured at the edge of the duct with the anemometer and within the
duct with the pitot tube device.  Any change in environment changes the
airflow.  The difference between having the partition ~12 feet from the end
of the duct and having one ~4' away made for around 10% difference.  A
crossflow at the end of the duct would likely change the pressure and
vectors of airflow, which would feed back up through the duct.

Feedback of warm air is really not a big problem if the intake air is
accurately measured.  It is hard to conceive of some small, but hot flow
that eludes all attempts at random thermometry as well as the systematic
measurement of the intake flow temp with a number of thermocouples.

I welcome your input, Horace.  Even if you do not introduce an idea that we
can use, the discourse allows people who are not familiar with the system
to become more so and we are open to suggestions.


Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 07:29:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11506;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:13:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199811211511.KAA15836 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:57:56 -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: <"EiG1B2.0.Zp2.eYjLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24891
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Jed wrote:
 
> Ed Wall wrote:
> 
> If I do present strong evidence,
> >we plan to further test it by submerging the radiator in an insulated
bath
> >and perform calorimetry on that.
> 
> I think that would be a poor idea. It may cool the water too much. The KF
> reportedly does not produce excess until the water reaches a critical
> temperature. I favor Plan A: put the KF in a large, insulated box and run
> water through a hose coiled inside it, or radiator coils, and do water
flow
> calorimetry.
> 
This is a possibility, and while it would include the motors in the
calorimetry, it requires a much larger and more elaborate test setup
because the air inside the box would be getting quite hot and would require
a heat exchanger with the ability to remove a lot of heat.  That would mean
running some really cold solution through a large radiator(s) within this
box with air forced through them.  To achieve the balance so that
conditions in the rotor housing are within the range of operation could
take a good bit of effort.  Such an idea is workable and we may resort to
it.

Putting the radiator in an insulated bath would be much cheaper and easier.
 The temperature of the rotor environment could be made whatever we wished
by allowing the water in the bath to rise.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 07:29:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17540;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:26:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121102822.0083fcb0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:28:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Analysis of Power Gen demo (IVb)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VYNgf2.0.wH4.UkjLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24894
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



  At 12:34 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:


>     The pump is submerged in the reservoir, and seems to be at the
very

>     bottom under the filter in the photos.

>

>Right. It is built in. That is aquarium pump. My guess is that it drew
about

>25 watts of the 85, but much of that heat went into the air, via the
cooling

>vents at the bottom.


   It appears that both the distribution of heat, and its exit

were guessed rather than measured.



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



>     It looks like the cell output line goes in the top of the
reservoir

>     container and goes through the 2.5 meters of coiled area top.

>

>That's complicated, and we bypassed it at times. That's the cooling loop
for

>the return. Someone suspected it might produce significant impedance,
but it

>wasn't enough for us to measure.



  The impact of impedance was guessed, not measured.

  There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time

in THAT experiment.  

  If there was, please state the type and model number. 


   Which was it?


   [The above question was ignored by Rothwell]



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


>     I'm still trying to see what Mitchell is getting at. I guess you
could

>     get a one shot overheating episode due to some effect occurring
when the

>     flow rate suddenly drops below it's average value. But that 
should

>     disappear over time if the flow is steady, and I can't comprehend
how it

>     could persist in the teeth of a 250cc/minute flow rate over time.

>

>I do not understand his theory, but he said the effect appears as a
mixing

>problem that directs a hot fluid stream to the thermocouple in the tube.
That

>is irrelevant; I did not use the thermocouple in the tube. I use my 
own

>instruments outside the tube, with a huge sample of water; much more
than the

>cell can hold at any time. Even if the flow was unmixed back at the tube
TC

>location, it was well mixed by the time I saw it.



   That is NOT the theory, nor an accurate statement of the issue

and problem.  


   NOR is Jed's purported measurement able to avoid the problem.


It is remarkable that Jed continues to twist what I and others write.  



The following is from the web page, and the two papers were 

developed over the next two years.


POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS

 Mitchell Swartz  http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html


ABSTRACT

Although many aspects of calorimeters have been discussed, 

including issues of potential problems with the thermometry 

[i.e. thermocouples, thermistors and thermometers,

including electrical grounding and crosstalk, 

thermal mixing and sensor positioning problems], 

the potential impact of positional effects of the 

flow calorimetry has not been

mentioned. The positional orientation refers to the 

direction of the flow, and not to the orientation of 

any temperature probes therein. Despite the reported 

advantages for flow calorimetry in detecting enthalpy 

from putative fusion reactions, these studies theoretically 

suggest that there may be effects from positional variation 

in the calorimetry of such flow

systems. Rather than 'ease of calibration' usually touted 

for such systems, it is suggested that calibration may be 

more complicated for vertical flow calorimetric systems. 

In the absence of additional calibration, it may be critical to 

keep semiquantitative calorimeters horizontal under some 

conditions. 


We now define hB as the ratio of heat transported 

by the buoyant forces to the heat transported by 

solution convection.


              heat transported by buoyant forces

        hB = -------------------------------------- 

             heat transferred by solution convection



This Q1D model of heat and mass transfer has indicated 

that what is generally correct for horizontal calorimetric 

systems, may not be correct for vertical systems, when the

non-dimensional number (=hB) is significantly greater than 

zero. Any apparent amplification of the 'excess heat' (if 

any, and there does appear to be some) would be greatest 

at the low flow levels. Increased flow makes the positional 

error less important. As a corollary, any false excess heat, 

or excess heat magnification, should also reduce with increased

flow. 


SUMMARY

In summary, thermometry may not be the only rate limiting 

factor for obtaining high-quality information from flow 

calorimeters if the non-dimensional number, hB {defined 

as the ratio of heat transfer by bouyancy to the heat 

transfer by convection} is greater than zero. hB , in a 

real system where viscosity, turbulence, and other parameters 

play a role, depends upon other non-dimensional factors 

including the Archimides non-dimensional number which 

is the ratio of the buoyant force to the viscous force, 

and possibly the Rayleigh non-dimensional number, which 

is the ratio of gravity to thermal conductivity. 


 This hypothesis, and Q1D model of heat and mass

transfer, do not imply that such systems do not exhibit 

'excess heat'. But rather that any such reported 'excess heat' 

parameters may be inflated, if the information was indeed

collected with a vertical flow calorimetric system, in the 

absence of confirmatory calibrations under low to moderate 

flow conditions where the non-dimensional number (hB) is not

trivial. "


   http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html



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

<italic>

  </italic>previously:

<italic>

</italic>>	The description does not test mixing of any sort.

>

>I do not see how it does not. The temperature would change if the fluid
had

>not been previously mixed. If you assert that fluid is not mixed and

>thermal gradients exist, the only way to test that assertion is to mix
the

>fluid and see whether the temperature changes.


  "kilowatts", good.  Controls, bad,  right, Jed?


   What possible calibration, or estimate of relative

impact of Bernard instability, could a single point removal

of 250 cc of fluid indicate?  

   It is not?  

  

   If  Rothwell disagrees he should write an equation 

with that as an input variable that yields it.

<italic> 


   </italic> Mitchell Swartz








From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 07:30:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17262;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:25:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:25:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121102727.00826ae0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:27:27 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jed misstatement about "Potential Flow Error"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120123426.0069609c pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Q3jO.0.eD4.kjjLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24893
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  At 12:34 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>     I'm still trying to see what Mitchell is getting at. I guess you could
>     get a one shot overheating episode due to some effect occurring when the
>     flow rate suddenly drops below it's average value. But that should
>     disappear over time if the flow is steady, and I can't comprehend how it
>     could persist in the teeth of a 250cc/minute flow rate over time.
>
>I do not understand his theory, but he said the effect appears as a mixing
>problem that directs a hot fluid stream to the thermocouple in the tube. That
>is irrelevant; I did not use the thermocouple in the tube. I use my own
>instruments outside the tube, with a huge sample of water; much more than the
>cell can hold at any time. Even if the flow was unmixed back at the tube TC
>location, it was well mixed by the time I saw it.

   That is NOT the theory, nor an accurate statement of the issue
and problem.  

   NOR is Jed's purported measurement able to avoid the problem.

It is remarkable that Jed continues to twist what I and others write.  


The following is from the web page, and the two papers were 
developed over the next two years.

POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS
 Mitchell Swartz  http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

ABSTRACT
Although many aspects of calorimeters have been discussed, 
including issues of potential problems with the thermometry 
[i.e. thermocouples, thermistors and thermometers,
including electrical grounding and crosstalk, 
thermal mixing and sensor positioning problems], 
the potential impact of positional effects of the 
flow calorimetry has not been
mentioned. The positional orientation refers to the 
direction of the flow, and not to the orientation of 
any temperature probes therein. Despite the reported 
advantages for flow calorimetry in detecting enthalpy 
from putative fusion reactions, these studies theoretically 
suggest that there may be effects from positional variation 
in the calorimetry of such flow
systems. Rather than 'ease of calibration' usually touted 
for such systems, it is suggested that calibration may be 
more complicated for vertical flow calorimetric systems. 
In the absence of additional calibration, it may be critical to 
keep semiquantitative calorimeters horizontal under some 
conditions. 

We now define hB as the ratio of heat transported 
by the buoyant forces to the heat transported by 
solution convection.

              heat transported by buoyant forces
        hB = -------------------------------------- 
             heat transferred by solution convection


This Q1D model of heat and mass transfer has indicated 
that what is generally correct for horizontal calorimetric 
systems, may not be correct for vertical systems, when the
non-dimensional number (=hB) is significantly greater than 
zero. Any apparent amplification of the 'excess heat' (if 
any, and there does appear to be some) would be greatest 
at the low flow levels. Increased flow makes the positional 
error less important. As a corollary, any false excess heat, 
or excess heat magnification, should also reduce with increased
flow. 

SUMMARY
In summary, thermometry may not be the only rate limiting 
factor for obtaining high-quality information from flow 
calorimeters if the non-dimensional number, hB {defined 
as the ratio of heat transfer by bouyancy to the heat 
transfer by convection} is greater than zero. hB , in a 
real system where viscosity, turbulence, and other parameters 
play a role, depends upon other non-dimensional factors 
including the Archimides non-dimensional number which 
is the ratio of the buoyant force to the viscous force, 
and possibly the Rayleigh non-dimensional number, which 
is the ratio of gravity to thermal conductivity. 

 This hypothesis, and Q1D model of heat and mass
transfer, do not imply that such systems do not exhibit 
'excess heat'. But rather that any such reported 'excess heat' 
parameters may be inflated, if the information was indeed
collected with a vertical flow calorimetric system, in the 
absence of confirmatory calibrations under low to moderate 
flow conditions where the non-dimensional number (hB) is not
trivial. "

   http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html


  For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW he
erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat
with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric 
system without adequate joule controls - and how to possibly
correct for it:

 Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 

Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 

    Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 08:08:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32162;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:06:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:06:43 -0800
Message-ID: <01db01be1568$5669a9e0$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Untitled (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~harter/doubllay.htm)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:01:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D5_01BE152D.88F93E60"
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1h2u2.0.Qs7.JKkLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24895
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_01D5_01BE152D.88F93E60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A look at some possibilities of Electrokinetic O/U Surface Phenomena in the
Kinetic Furnace, Griggs Pump,and the P&F cell.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~harter/doubllay.htm


------=_NextPart_000_01D5_01BE152D.88F93E60
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Untitled.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Untitled.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://pubpages.unh.edu/~harter/doubllay.htm
Modified=406E2E746615BE018A

------=_NextPart_000_01D5_01BE152D.88F93E60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 09:15:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA21789;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:13:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:13:55 -0800
Message-ID: <01e901be1571$b9d0a8e0$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:08:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"q98H3.0.NK5.JJlLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24896
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

What happens to a mercury thermometer when it is next to a fishtank pump or
electric motors?

Also, watercup magnetometers in combination with Helmholtz Coils are used to
measure very low level magnetic fields. Maybe the KF is sensitive to
orientation wrt the Geomagnetic Field or other.  :-)

Something to do with the "gyromagnetic" precession of the protons in the
water molecules.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 10:42:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25041;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:39:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:39:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3657088B.619148A2 ro.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:38:04 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coil Question [Please -MORE- Help!]
References: <36550581.86726D44 ihug.co.nz>
	 <36542A67.1579 interlaced.net>
	 <36555A4C.2ABDCD55 ihug.co.nz>
	 <36548060.47A5 interlaced.net>
	 <3656B8D8.5838354F ihug.co.nz> <3.0.1.32.19981120151955.00af16ac@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TISxm1.0.B76.lZmLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24897
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Scott Little wrote:

> I've got one, that has always been within 5% on a variety of coils
> (air-core) we've made over the years.  If anybody wants it, I could send a
> little .gif that shows it as Mathcad depicts it...or a Mathcad v.7 file
> that contains it.
>
> Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
> Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
> 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)


Scott,
Could you send me the mathcad file? Thanks in advance!
--
Regards,
Patrick V. Reavis


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 10:59:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02943;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:59:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:59:00 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27cbf40e118 [12.21.208.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:05:52 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"V8HLG.0.rj.qrmLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24898
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:15 AM 11/21/98, Ed Wall wrote:
[snip]
>It is hard to conceive of some small, but hot flow
>that eludes all attempts at random thermometry as well as the systematic
>measurement of the intake flow temp with a number of thermocouples.
[snip]

Laminar flow preserves temperature differences between the strata for long
distances.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 11:03:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05557;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:02:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:02:44 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:53:34 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Jed misstatement about "Potential Flow Error"
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 LAA05537
Resent-Message-ID: <"PH4qa2.0.lM1.JvmLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24899
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitch,

I wrote "I do not understand the theory, but [Swartz] said the effect
appears as a mixing problem that directs a hot fluid stream to the
thermocouple in the tube." You say this is wrong:

	That is NOT the theory, nor an accurate statement of the issue and
	problem.  

Okay, it is not the theory. In that case I have no idea what the theory
says. I must have misunderstood what you wrote earlier. When Monteverde
said, ". . . regarding measurement errors presumably due to Barnard
instability. I take this to mean that small quantities of locally heated
fluids rise up or get entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo
probes into reporting that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain
temperature when it really isn't." You responded:

	That is correct, which is why one should not try to make flow
	calorimeters go vertical.

So I thought we were talking a mixing problem and a stream of hot water.
Now I no longer have a clue what you mean, I am sorry to say.


	NOR is Jed's purported measurement able to avoid the problem.

I see. So, mixing a large sample of the fluid externally does not avoid the
problem. Well, again, I am sorry, but in that case I cannot imagine how
anyone can avoid the problem, or even determine that the problem exists. I
am out of ideas. I am stuck. If you will tell what else you think I should
have done, then next time I am working with a flow calorimeter I may try
it. You say I should calibrate, but of course I *have* calibrated
extensively, yet I have never observed the problem you describe. You will
have to come up with additional, specific recommendations.


	The following is from the web page, and the two papers were  developed
	over the next two years.

	POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS
	Mitchell Swartz  http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

Yes, I have seen this paper. I am sorry, but I cannot make head or tail of
it � it might as well be written in Chinese for all I can make of it. If
you wish to communicate with me, you will have to write another version.
Make it simpler, less technical, with less jargon. You will have to include
specific, quantitative descriptions and recommendations. For example, you
write:

	Increased flow makes the positional  error less important. As a
	corollary, any false excess heat,  or excess heat magnification, should
	also reduce with increased flow. 

Since I cannot understand the theory, you will have to give me a specific
number. Apparently you think that a flow of 1 liter per minute was too low.
You must tell me how high the flow rate should have been.

It is your theory, after all. If you will not draw specific, quantitative
conclusions from it, and you will not say exactly what steps to take in the
lab, and what flow rates to select, you can hardly expect other people to
do so! I have asked various experts on this forum by private e-mail. None
of them can tell me what you have in mind. They, too, fail to understand
your paper. There may be specific recommendations buried in the technical
jargon, but I am not capable of finding them. Somewhere you may say that
with 1.5 watts input the flow rate should have been 5 liters per minute, or
20 liters. I cannot find the information or follow the equations in the
paper. So, if you want me to know the correct flow rate, you must tell me
what it is, explicitly, right here, in plain English, in liters per minute.

If you do not want me to know, that's fine, but do not expect me to draw
conclusions from a paper I do not understand. Do not blame me for not
knowing the correct flow rate. I would not ask you to translate a Japanese
short story into English, would I? We all have our limitations.


	For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW he
	erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat with
	Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric  system without
	adequate joule controls - and how to possibly correct for it.

Yes, I have seen these papers. They make zero sense to me. You will have to
interpret them and make specific recommendations for a test procedure.
There is no point in telling me I should calibrate with a joule heater.
Cravens, Tinsley and I did that already, extensively, over many months. We
never saw any sign of the effects you describe in your paper, at any flow
rate. Perhaps we overlooked the problem somehow. You will have to tell us
how you performed experiments to observe these effects, at what power and
flow levels, with what equipment. A photo of your apparatus might help. We
might be able to replicate you. Your papers do not appear to describe any
experiments (although I may have overlooked a description), so as things
stand I have no way to replicate or test your theory, and no idea what you
are talking about.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 11:15:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10317;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:14:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:14:20 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121141226.00689630 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:12:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
In-Reply-To: <01e901be1571$b9d0a8e0$ef57fad0 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wd-T72.0.7X2.C4nLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24900
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Fred Sparber asks:

>What happens to a mercury thermometer when it is next to a fishtank pump or
>electric motors?

Nothing! Nothing detectible, anyway. I have tried this many times. You
never see any change in the mercury level. I tried it with the red alcohol
thermometer too. Electronic thermometers, on the other hand, sometimes go
bananas, the way my DTA4000 thermocouple did next to the milling machine.
That's why I never fully trust 'em.

Always, ALWAYS use a first principle, non-electronic instrument as "reality
check." If I cannot see the physical change in the instrument -- the moving
fluid in the anemometer, the deflected magnet in the voltmeter -- I do not
believe it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 11:33:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA18236;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:32:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:32:24 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121143030.0068e860 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:30:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b27cbf40e118 [12.21.208.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5u9fZ3.0.oS4.7LnLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24901
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner writes:

>At 10:15 AM 11/21/98, Ed Wall wrote:
>[snip]
>>It is hard to conceive of some small, but hot flow
>>that eludes all attempts at random thermometry as well as the systematic
>>measurement of the intake flow temp with a number of thermocouples.
>[snip]
>
>Laminar flow preserves temperature differences between the strata for long
>distances.

I take it you are still talking about a situation in which the outlet flow
comes back to the inlet and "fools" us into thinking there is excess heat.

The flow strata may be persistant and it may go for a long distance, but it
cannot be invisible. It cannot be two dimensional. When we systematically
move a thermometer around, eventually we must encounter this flow and
register it. Yet when we move thermometers in front of the KF machine here
in Georgia, we see no sign of a stream of hot air. It would have to more
than 4 degrees F hotter than ambient (the excess translates into 4 degrees
F), yet we see nothing even 1 deg F hotter! It would be impossible to miss
such a strong flow of hot air.

Furthermore, the stream of hot air is blown out of a duct 9 feet away (4'
of machine, 5' of duct), in a large, quiescent, unobstructed steel
building. What would make it do a U turn and come back? Note that in the
more restricted space in Bow, where more objects stand in the way and might
deflect the flow back towards the inlet side, we saw no sign of excess heat.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 11:59:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26095;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:57:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:57:57 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121145948.00836750 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:59:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed misstatement about "Potential Flow Error" (IVc)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aQuH73.0.cN6.4jnLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24902
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




   At 01:53 PM 11/21/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:


>"I take this to mean that small quantities of locally heated

>fluids rise up or get entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo

>probes into reporting that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain

>temperature when it really isn't." 


  NO. 

   The errors are in calorimetry, not thermometry (which may

have its own errors).  It has nothing to do with the position

of the thermometer either, as Jed sometimes claims.



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



   Two questions remain unanswered by Jed Rothwell.


  Whether Jed monitored the fluid flow in real time, or

actually looked for the presence of Bernard instability.

They remain unanswereed.



>     It looks like the cell output line goes in the top of the
reservoir

>     container and goes through the 2.5 meters of coiled area top.

>   Rothwell:

>That's complicated, and we bypassed it at times. That's the cooling loop
for

>the return. Someone suspected it might produce significant impedance,
but it

>wasn't enough for us to measure.



  The impact of impedance was guessed, not measured.

  There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time

in THAT experiment.  

  If there was, please state the type and model number. 


   Which was it?


 

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

<italic>

  </italic>previously:

<italic>

</italic>>	The description does not test mixing of any sort.

> Rothwell:

>I do not see how it does not. The temperature would change if the fluid
had

>not been previously mixed. If you assert that fluid is not mixed and

>thermal gradients exist, the only way to test that assertion is to mix
the

>fluid and see whether the temperature changes.


  

What possible calibration, or estimate of relative

impact of Bernard instability, could a single point removal

of 250 cc of fluid indicate?  

  If  Rothwell disagrees he should write an equation 

with that as an input variable that yields it.


   <italic>   </italic> Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 12:51:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10496;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:50:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:50:51 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121154900.0068bdac pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:49:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Jed misstatement about "Potential Flow Error" (IVc)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981121145948.00836750 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"E3uv03.0.vZ2.hUoLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24903
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitch,

You wrote:

	   At 01:53 PM 11/21/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

	>"I take this to mean that small quantities of locally heated


That was Monteverde, not me. In response, you now write:

	NO. 
	   The errors are in calorimetry, not thermometry . . .

Previously, when Monteverde made the statement, you wrote: "That is 
correct . . .," but now you say the answer is "NO." Okay, fine.


	Whether Jed monitored the fluid flow in real time . . .

At Power Gen I used only Galileo's method, as stated in the report. I am
not sure whether you consider that "real time" or not.


	. . . or actually looked for the presence of Bernard instability. They
	remain unanswereed.

Well, I guess I tried to look for Bernard instability by mixing the fluid
in a cup, but apparently this method does not work. I do not know of any
other method.


	The impact of impedance was guessed, not measured.

Again, I measured it to the best of my ability, by measuring the flow at
the end of the hose and at the spot near the cell. I saw no measurable
difference, and I have never seen any measurable difference in other tests
with flowmeters. If Swartz calls this "guessing" not "measuring" then so be
it -- I cannot argue, nor can I imagine how he thinks it should be measured.


	  There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time
	in THAT experiment.  
	  If there was, please state the type and model number. 

	   Which was it?

No flowmeter, as stated in the report. I have never said there was one.
This is a misunderstanding.

  
	What possible calibration, or estimate of relative impact of Bernard
	instability, could a single point removal of 250 cc of fluid indicate?  

I have no idea. It is your theory: according to you it can indicate
nothing. I am not sure what  "a single point removal" means. I am removing
all of the fluid from all points, since I direct the entire flow into the
cup, and I gather ~25 times more fluid than the cell holds. I thought that
Bernard instability caused a stream of hot fluid and cold fluid, and that
by combining all streams of fluid in a cup, and stirring the fluid, I would
see the actual average temperature. Apparently this is incorrect, but I
cannot imagine why, and I have no idea what other method might work. If you
will not explain, I cannot guess.


	If  Rothwell disagrees he should write an equation with that as an input
	variable that yields it.

I am incapable of writing equations. If Swartz disagrees, he should write a
simple, step-by-step procedure for detecting Bernard instability, and he
should spell out exactly what flow rate I should have used, since 1 liter
per minute is too slow. If he has no specific advice and he will not tell
me what I did wrong, my hands are tied.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 12:54:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11536;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:53:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:53:32 -0800
Message-Id: <36572827.B6A1ACC1 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:52:55 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FLmVE2.0.4q2.BXoLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24904
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://jjap.kopas.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle?magazine=JJAP&volume=37&number=11A&page=L1274-L1276

Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol.37(1998) pp.L1274-L1276 
Part 2, No. 11A, 1 November 1998 

                                                                     Express Letter

Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell 

Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang 

Osaka University, 11-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan 

(Received September 22, 1998 ; accepted for publication October 7, 1998 )

Abstract:

Both D2O-cell and H2O-cell are constructed with the same Double Structure Cathode (DS-cathode), and connected in series as a ``Double-cell'' to examine the energy generation under the same electrolytic current. D2O-cell generates tremendously excess energ
y during a long period such as over several thousand hours, but any energy is never generated in H2O-cell when the chemical energy is subtracted in both cells. Furthermore, ``Mixed-cell'' blended with D2O and H2O electrolytes (D2O/H2O=2 in weight) also ge
nerates an excess energy, but with the considerably different characteristics from D2O-cell. 


Keywords:

DS-cathode, Pd-black, spillover-effect, atom-cluster, nano-particle, enormous excess energy, solid-state plasma fusion 

[Table of Contents][full text PDF] (82K)




Free registiration required for to access to the full text.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 13:18:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20300;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:17:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:17:21 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b27cdde1134d [208.228.222.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:23:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
Resent-Message-ID: <"Eezr62.0.6z4.XtoLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24905
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:30 PM 11/21/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Horace Heffner writes:
>
>>At 10:15 AM 11/21/98, Ed Wall wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>It is hard to conceive of some small, but hot flow
>>>that eludes all attempts at random thermometry as well as the systematic
>>>measurement of the intake flow temp with a number of thermocouples.
>>[snip]
>>
>>Laminar flow preserves temperature differences between the strata for long
>>distances.
>
>I take it you are still talking about a situation in which the outlet flow
>comes back to the inlet and "fools" us into thinking there is excess heat.

Yes.

>
>The flow strata may be persistant and it may go for a long distance, but it
>cannot be invisible. It cannot be two dimensional. When we systematically
>move a thermometer around, eventually we must encounter this flow and
>register it. Yet when we move thermometers in front of the KF machine here
>in Georgia, we see no sign of a stream of hot air.

If it existed it would be at the very edge of the intake.


>It would have to more
>than 4 degrees F hotter than ambient (the excess translates into 4 degrees
>F), yet we see nothing even 1 deg F hotter! It would be impossible to miss
>such a strong flow of hot air.


If you measured the air temp at the edge of the inlet in Ga and did not
find an elevated temperature then scratch this hypothesis. There is still
the possibility of a vortex near the outlet hearting the duct prior to the
measuring point.  This might be determined by measuring the temperature at
the outer surface of the duct.


>
>Furthermore, the stream of hot air is blown out of a duct 9 feet away (4'
>of machine, 5' of duct), in a large, quiescent, unobstructed steel
>building. What would make it do a U turn and come back?


The reduced pressure at the inlet.  It's analagous to electric current in
water.  Most of it flows in the vicinity of the two electrodes.


>Note that in the
>more restricted space in Bow, where more objects stand in the way and might
>deflect the flow back towards the inlet side, we saw no sign of excess heat.
>
>- Jed

The barriers in the way would tend to break up the laminar flow.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 13:32:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25709;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:31:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:31:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199811212129.QAA05082 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:33:35 -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: <"763jI.0.dH6.95pLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24906
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

----------
> From: Frederick J Sparber <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: George <gsparb juno.com>
> Subject: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
> Date: Saturday, November 21, 1998 12:08 PM
> 
> To: Vortex
> 
> What happens to a mercury thermometer when it is next to a fishtank pump
or
> electric motors?
> 
Excellent point, Fred!

I will compare a mercury one to an alcohol one in water with the magnetic
stirrer being used for thermocouple calibration.  You may have spared me a
big headache.

> Also, watercup magnetometers in combination with Helmholtz Coils are used
to
> measure very low level magnetic fields. Maybe the KF is sensitive to
> orientation wrt the Geomagnetic Field or other.  :-)
> 
Now, this, I never heard of.  I thought about trying to measure the field
around the thing with Hall-effect sensors, but with those two big motors,
unless it was really strong, the signal would be swamped.  And even if not
swamped distinguishing one effect from the other would be tough. 
Eliminating motor field noise would call for redesign ($$$).

Regards,

Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 13:58:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02209;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:57:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:57:19 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121165521.00690048 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:55:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Bow Neg. Results w/ GA Water
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b27cdde1134d [208.228.222.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"j-cgO3.0.JY._SpLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24907
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner writes:

>
>If you measured the air temp at the edge of the inlet in Ga and did not
>find an elevated temperature then scratch this hypothesis.


Well, actually I tried to stay about a meter away from the machine, because
it was hot and radiating in all directions. One side of the equipment
cabinet was off. Next time I will get closer -- right up against it -- and
look look everywhere for a 4 deg C stream of air. (Actually, I think it
would have to be even hotter than that, but it is in that range, anyway.)

Next time should be in about two weeks.


>
>The barriers in the way would tend to break up the laminar flow.
>
 
We could turn on a fan this time. They have some large fans for use in
summer. (No AC, I think.) We could place it two or three meters away from
the inlet and blow air from that side of the room towards the inlet, and --
presumably -- at the same time blow the outlet even farther away.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 14:07:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06718;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:06:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:06:37 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b27ce3a96f0e [208.228.222.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:13:28 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Another answer for coil inductance
Resent-Message-ID: <"fDah4.0.qe1.ibpLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24908
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

According to the Electronics Designers Handboook by Giacoletto, Second
Edition, McGraw Hill, page 3-47, given a multilayer close-wound cylindrical
coil with:

Pi = 3.14159
r1 = inner radius
r2 = outer radius
r = (r1 + r2)/2 = average radius
a = r2 - r1 = coil thickness
b = coil length
u = permeability of the wire
N = number of turns
P = 4 Pi [ln 8r/a - 1/2 + 1/24 (a/2r)^2 (ln 8r/a + 3.583)]

the inductance is given by:

L = (u r N^2 P F)/(4 Pi)

where F is given by the table:

a/2r = ||  b/a=0  |  b/a=.25  |  b/a=.5  |  b/a=.75  |  b/a=1.0 |
=======||=========|===========|==========|===========|==========|
 0.00  ||  1.0    |  1.0      |  1.0     |  1.0      |  1.0     |
 0.25  ||  1.0    |  0.9021   |  0.8246  |  0.7603   |  0.7056  |
 0.50  ||  1.0    |  0.8656   |  0.7632  |  0.6816   |  0.6148  |
 0.75  ||  1.0    |  0.8347   |  0.7146  |  0.6234   |  0.5512  |
 1.00  ||  1.0    |  0.8103   |  0.6805  |  0.5839   |  0.5102  |

a/2r = || a/b=.75 |  a/b=.5   |  a/b=.25 |  a/b=0    |
=======||=========|===========|==========|===========|
 0.00  ||  1.0    |  1.0      |  1.0     |  1.0      |
 0.25  || 0.6442  |  0.5487   |  0.3789  |  0.0      |
 0.50  || 0.5430  |  0.4385   |  0.2754  |  0.0      |
 0.75  || 0.4769  |  0.3740   |  0.2250  |  0.0      |
 1.00  || 0.4358  |  0.3360   |  0.1976  |  0.0      |

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 15:18:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29387;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:17:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:17:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121181951.008305f0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:19:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Analysis of "Potential Flow Error" (V)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981121154900.0068bdac pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981121145948.00836750 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ygP5G2.0.5B7.WeqLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24909
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 03:49 PM 11/21/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>	What possible calibration, or estimate of relative impact of Bernard
>	instability, could a single point removal of 250 cc of fluid indicate?  
>
>I have no idea. 


  Then there is NO evidence supporting the claim that
it is not important, or that it was not relevant as has been
repeatedly incorrect touted.

  Logically, a reliable flow calorimeter should read the SAME whether the
flow is going horizontally or vertically over the sample volume.
With these bead systems at these flow rates, they are reported to
not do so, which may be why vertical calorimetry has been favored by
some.  

     A stronger case that the change of the flow does not 
distort the signal and give erroneous amplification 
would be made by simple joule calibration.


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

>	If  Rothwell disagrees he should write an equation with that as an input
>	variable that yields it.
>
>I am incapable of writing equations. If Swartz disagrees, he should write a
>simple, step-by-step procedure for detecting Bernard instability, and he
>should spell out exactly what flow rate I should have used, since 1 liter
>per minute is too slow. If he has no specific advice and he will not tell
>me what I did wrong, my hands are tied.
>
>- Jed


   Fair enuf, but inability to write the equation seriously
suggests that utter simplifications were used, perhaps chosen
to maximize the "signal".   Also, claims that the hypothesis
was "ruled out" are thus NOT supported by any measurements
made.  The hypothesis is ruled/in based upon the analysis below.

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



   The following analysis demonstrates why it was
unlikely to impossible that 1300 watts were generated int he
system as described based upon internal inconsistencies.


    At 09:22 AM 11/20/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>Jed reported a reservoir temperature of 35 deg C; Delta T required to boil
>is 65 deg, so 10g * 65 = 650 calories. For joules use factor of 4.2 for
>electrolyte instead of the 4.1 used for pure water:  650 * 4.2 = 2730
>joules. At 1000 joules per second (watts) ignoring radiative and other
>losses: 2.73 seconds. Would it actually take 2.73 seconds? Of course not!
>There's electrolysis going on, bubbles, leakage and residual flow...Bernard
>instability and stratification...    


   Now Jed Rothwell actually purported 1.3 kilowatts so that 
time should should be slighly less than the calculated number of seconds.


   
    Now suppose the input water IS added at 16.7 ml/sec. (and which
explains why a serious flowmeter was a sine qua non requirement).
repo
    With such a low flow, one must consider the delta-T reported which
in this case has had a range of 8-16 degrees claimed. This thermometry
seems reasonable, except for the possible effect of the Bernard 
instability discussed previously.  But are the numbers reasonable anyway?

   With the purported flow rate 16.7 ml/sec -- and we can agree
10cc which hit boiling by Rick's correct calculation above
in 2 seconds is NOT going to absorb much
more energy except to the degree that it is replenished, and THEN
there would be necessarily less than the 16.7 ml/sec.   In any
case, we consider the maximum case since 2000 liters was not
reported to replenished every 12 minutes (see below).
At 16.7 ml/sec there are maximally taken by that flow from the cell
134 to 267 calories per second.  This is based upon which delta-T
was taken, ie. either 8 or 16 degrees.

  Now, each second there are 1300 watts, or a further injection of
circa 310 calories per second.  The putative 1 Liter per minute
is 17 or so ml/sec which removes 134 to 267 calories for the two
delta-T mentions (ie. 8 and 16 degrees).  

  There is thus an unaccounted for MAJOR heat production up to
177 calories per second that must be dumped
somewhere.  But this was called a FLOW CALORIMETER and
the heat is supposed to be dumped in the flow.  
Now what could be the possible effect of the unaccounted for
43 to 177 calories??   Now for comparison, since most of vorts 
may have done some soldering, a soldering gun is 45 watts which 
puts out only 10.8 calories per second 
    (A soldering iron is about 20-25 watts). 

 In fact, if there were 1300 watts, there would be SO much energy 
unaccounted for in short order that the two liters would have hit
boiling temperatures off in about 12 minutes (50 minutes maximum) 
by extending Rick's rather  nice calculation.  



  Was the 2000 cc replenished several times every hour?

because the flow rates and delta-Ts do not support the transfer
of such a large heat production rate.



  Could the missing heat have been lost by radiation?

Well, with a unaccounted-for power dissipation required
of 189 to 741 watts, Jed's vertical flow calorimeter 
  -- which is purported to be a flow system --
would have a putative new heat loss (outside of the
flow route)  of 11.2 to 93 watts/degree C.
  WOW.  That is quite a lossy system.  Glassware in the 
kitchen has losses of about 300 milliwatts to a 
few watts peak/degree C. Most calorimeters have losses
quite a small fraction of that.


 Hence the urging for the need for a joule control.


    Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 15:30:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01824;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:29:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:29:10 -0800
Message-ID: <023f01be15a6$2464e8e0$ef57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>, <puthoff@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Electrokinetic Streaming and Casimir-ZPE Effects
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:23:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"DfzIi.0.PS.5pqLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24910
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In the moving aqueous electrolyte solid-liquid boundary,the Stern Layer set
up by attraction of the positive cations to the free electrons in the metal
acts like movement of one of the Casimir plates wrt the other.

Apparently this can tap into ZPE and cause O/U effects,but, Hal Puthoff is
going to have to explain how, to us.  :-)

        Moving Electrolyte Stream ---->

-   - - - - - - - -  -  - -- -  -- -  Anions
-       -     -   -   - <--water dipoles
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Cations
________________________________________Surface
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
________________________________________


Even in the CETI beads the polarization effect in the polymer substrate
could have a profound effect on this Electrical "Double Layer".

Some of the science was posted earlier in regard to ELECTROKINETIC EFFECTS
and STREAMING POTENTIAL.

As soon as the Phone Company repairs the 200 pair (or more) cable that the
pipeline company laying a water and sewer line cut while I was typing this,
I'll send it.  I think I'm gonna get a Cell Phone, this is about the 6th
time they've cut that cable in a year. :-)

Regards,   Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 15:46:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07272;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:45:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:45:25 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b27cff874e66 [12.64.35.183]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981121181951.008305f0 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981121154900.0068bdac pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121145948.00836750 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:41:54 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Analysis of "Potential Flow Error" (V)
Resent-Message-ID: <"EvrZh1.0.Yn1.K2rLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24911
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

You worte:

   >  Well, with a unaccounted-for power dissipation
   >  required of 189 to 741 watts, Jed's vertical flow
   >  calorimeter -- which is purported to be a flow system
   >  -- would have a putative new heat loss (outside of the
   >  flow route) of 11.2 to 93 watts/degree C. WOW.  That is
   >  quite a lossy system.

Did you forget about the electric fan drawing outside air over the 2.5
meters of coiled Tygon tubing in the upper portion, or "heat exchanger"
section of the resorvoir assembly?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 16:15:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23448;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:13:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:13:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121191501.00834c30 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:15:01 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis of "Potential Flow Error" (V)
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b27cff874e66 [12.64.35.183]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981121181951.008305f0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121154900.0068bdac pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121145948.00836750 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981121135334.0068b978 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"s_Ax72.0.5k5.BSrLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24912
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 01:41 PM 11/21/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>   >  Well, with a unaccounted-for power dissipation
>   >  required of 189 to 741 watts, Jed's vertical flow
>   >  calorimeter -- which is purported to be a flow system
>   >  -- would have a putative new heat loss (outside of the
>   >  flow route) of 11.2 to 93 watts/degree C. WOW.  That is
>   >  quite a lossy system.
>
>Did you forget about the electric fan drawing outside air over the 2.5
>meters of coiled Tygon tubing in the upper portion, or "heat exchanger"
>section of the resorvoir assembly?


   Good point, but "No".  

   That portion of heat transfer has been accounted for in the 
flow portion already.  After all, the flow system has to dump 
the 134 to 267 calories per second for the two delta-Ts mentioned
(ie. 8 and 16 degrees).  So the heat exchanger had BETTER do that.

  If you count it TWICE, that would be incorrect as it 
would be "double entry" for heat loss.

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 16:46:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30812;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:43:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:43:22 -0800
Message-ID: <36575E6F.2151 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:44:31 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another answer for coil inductance
References: <v01530502b27ce3a96f0e [208.228.222.173]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZeeHe3.0.MX7.gurLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24913
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> According to the Electronics Designers Handboook by Giacoletto, Second
> Edition, McGraw Hill, page 3-47, given a multilayer close-wound cylindrical
> coil with:

This one looks like it should be REAL CLOSE, Horace!  Now, we need to
con someone into writing up a neat little Qbasic program to take inputs
of: Pi, r1, r2, b, u, and the F table, and spit out the inductance, L.
You busy, Horace? :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 17:25:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA11913;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:23:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:23:46 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27d01047c51 [208.228.222.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:30:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Hudson Seminar and CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"HL56l3.0.wv2.XUsLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24914
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 3:29 AM 11/21/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>Here is a quote from one of David Hudson's seminars.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>>we got a copy of Pons &
>>Fleischman's paper before they publicly announced. It was sent to
>>GE for their review.

This sounds incredible.  I have never seen any reference to preprints or
other information being available prior to the press release.  Maybe
Fleischmann or Pons will have someting to say about that at the next ICCF?
Others here who have been more involved with the early events or have had
access to the CF archives at Cornell may have something to add on that.
There were not even any referees involved.


>>It was their electric chemical catalyst
>>division who works with Palladium. They handed it to me and said,
>>"Dave, look here. What's coming out here?" Pons and Fleischman
>>were putting a Palladium electrode in this Lithium Deuterate
>>solution. Lithium is the third element on the Periodic Table.
>>Lithium will dissolve into the Palladium just like Hydrogen. It's
>>tiny and it goes in between the metal-metal bonds, just like
>>Hydrogen, and it weakens the s-p bonding and little by little,
>>the Palladium begins to disaggregate from the other palladium
>>atoms and go to the high-spin state.


There is no static mechanism, or mechanism present in a CF cell, that I
know of which can store significant energy by changing the nucleus spin
state.  Long term runnning CF cells are reported to produce so much excess
energy that a magnetic field of that energy would be detectable blocks
away.


>>What they have reported is
>>that after several days, there is this tremendous release of
>>energy and it's more energy than the amperage that went into the
>>sample. What they haven't figured out is that a superconductor
>>feeds on the magnetic field, not on the amperage.

The magnetic field in a superconductor only rises to match the externally
applied magetic field, which in the case of CF expriments is very small.
Even if the CF cell were placed in a strong magnetic field, the energy in
the superconductor would be limited by the critical field strength, at
which value the the superconductor stops superconducting .  Near that point
the amount of current that can be supported by the superconductor
*diminishes*.


>>And so
>>literally, when they pull the voltage potential in it, there's
>>no amperage flowing. The amperage only puts the Lithium into the
>>Palladium. That's the only purpose of the amperage is to
>>electroplate the Lithium onto the Palladium and cause the metal-
>>metal bonding of the Palladium to break and form what Pons and
>>Fleischman call, and this is their scientific technical term,
>>"the white crud on the surface of the Palladium." And that white
>>crud is the superconductor. And it literally builds up energy.
>>Builds up energy. Kind of like you think of a capacitor building
>>up energy.


There is no mechanism described which can build up large amounts of energy
in a thin white film on the Pd electrode.  This is somewhat like saying
trains store energy.  I am going to store up the energy to run the United
States for a day in trains.  There may be grains of truth, but it all falls
apart if you even have the slightest fell for the real numbers.


>>It's flowing more and more light and it's feeding on
>>the magnetic potential. More and more light, more and more light,
>>until it reaches what's called HC2, the greatest amount of
>>magnetic field that superconductor can sustain. and at that
>>point, it collapses.


This sounds nonsensical.  There must be some wild new theory behind this.
It is certainly not conventional.  Some here disagree, but I'll agree with
Carl Sagan here that the extraordinary claims require extraodinary proof.
Not only are the claims extraordinary, but so is the vocabulary.  On the
web page referenced below, there is an extensive new vocabulary being used,
where various existing conventional terms are used in new and bizarre ways.
Not only is there a bunch of new or abused terms, there are lots of new
but unexplained effects anticipated.

I have some experience with blue, orange, and white glow in electrolytic
experiments, but I see no reason to invoke nuclear reactions or
superconductivity to explain them when simple oxidation reactions will do.



>>        In another paper it says "We will find
>>that a superconducting material like Palladium is going into a
>>state that is much like superconductivity when it causes the cold
>>fusion reaction."


The "superconducting state" referred to here is not like any other I know
of.  For one thing it is above room temperature, so discovery of this state
in 1989 would have been worthy of a Nobel Prize.  There has been plenty of
time for replication and confirmation.  There is no condition present in CF
to create a known superconducting state in the conventional sense, i.e.
paired electrons acting in accord with the BCS Theory.  I suppose a vacuum
is superconducting, in the sense that it has no resistance, but a vacuum
does not exhibit robustly the effects we associate with superconductivity,
like the Meissner effect.  Superconductivity in terms of one or a few atoms
has no meaning in the conventional senseto my knowledge.



>> And they're figuring this out. They're seeing
>>what 1 am describing,  but they don't understand this, yet.
>>Palladium specifically can become superdeformed. Palladium will
>>come apart by just looking at it wrong. So certainly 'when this
>>flux collapse occurs, you'll get all sorts of elements that
>>shouldn't have been there before.


Even if energy could be stored in the nucleus, and even though palladium
deforms, no method is suggested here for using that energy to achieve the
exchange of nuclear components.  This reminds me of the cartoon of a guy at
the blackboard with a giant flowchart where all paths from start to end
flow through a central block labeled "Then a Miracle Happens".
Unfortunately, this is not an unusual attribute when it comes to CF
theories, so even if there is no more info on this David Hudson is not
alone.  8^)


>
>http://monatomic.earth.com/
>
>Well people, what do you think? I say this is it. This is how you get the
>weird particles. It took over 5 million bucks (as I recall) in research to
>discover monatomics. Comments?


In looking through the above web page I see no credible theory, or
experiments demonstrating anything to substantiate the claims or even the
vocabulary being used.  It is another world.  The only thing giving the
page any credibility that I can can find are the pointers to various
university physics teaching resources - which are not at all germane,
especially to the decription which misleads you to believe you are being
referred to a "monatomic" experimental resources page, when all it is is an
undergraduate physics page.  This looks like a cheap ruse that would only
work on the most unsophisticated interested parties, i.e. potential
investors.

If there were some good conclusive experiments posted demonstrating free
energy or even superconductivity, as per the "monatomic" theory, one of the
crucial ingredients of the posed ideas, then this might be interesting.

There does not seem to be any emphasis on independent replication or
disclosure, real warning signals for something that has been around a long
time yet is still being hyped.  Maybe I missed something?

I somebody asked me for money on this basis I would run away, run away!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 17:38:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17604;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:37:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:37:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199811220135.UAA05322 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:39:00 -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: <"I5rUw3.0.-I4.VhsLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24915
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Re; Magnetic Induction Effects Around O/U Experiments?
> Date: Saturday, November 21, 1998 2:12 PM
> 
> Fred Sparber asks:
> 
> >What happens to a mercury thermometer when it is next to a fishtank pump
or
> >electric motors?
> 
> Nothing! Nothing detectible, anyway. I have tried this many times. You
> never see any change in the mercury level. I tried it with the red
alcohol
> thermometer too. Electronic thermometers, on the other hand, sometimes go
> bananas, the way my DTA4000 thermocouple did next to the milling machine.
> That's why I never fully trust 'em.
> 
My test using a magnetic stirrer at maximum with mercury and alcohol
thermometers adjacent to each other in a beaker filled with water showed no
deviation caused
by the magnetic field within the resolution of the alcohol thermometer
(which was nowhere near as good as the limited range mercury one.  The test
ran for a couple of hours.  If there is an effect it will be much reduced
from the one in this test because the magnetic field is strong enough to
spin a stirring bar at high speed in moderately viscous fluids at the
location where the mercury thermometer was just tested.  The thermometer,
during the calibration testing, will not be resting on the bottom of the
vessel as it was for the test.  Obviously, the magnetic field some distance
from a KF motor is not strong enough to move a stirring bar.  

I think we can scratch that doubt.

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 17:43:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18696;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:40:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:40:34 -0800
Message-ID: <36576BA0.435C earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:40:48 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Carr: Chubb: band state theory  11.21.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PWoDY2.0.2a4.HksLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24916
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.9.98
       Date: 21 Nov 1998 22:19:19 GMT
       From: jac ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
 Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion

rmforall earthlink.net writes:
>Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.4.98 
>From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil

>There is ample evidence that in solids what I am saying about coherence,
>even approximate coherence, in a periodic system is a valid starting
>point for understanding non-local phenomena.  

 You need to make a distinction between intrinsic non-localities 
 and collective phenomena; they are very different. 

>The most striking examples
>of this are normal conductivity (with the astronomically large
>scattering lengths that are associated with this phenomenon),  

 That is not due to a non-locality, and the electrons do not 
 travel astronomically large distances in a wire. 

>Bragg scattering of X-rays, 

 This is a quantum effect of interaction of a particle with a 
 regular lattice whose spacing is comparable to the wavelength 
 of the particle's wavefunction.  

>the Mossbauer effect, 

 This is also a result of an atom interacting with its neighbors, 
 and the coherence involved is that expected for a condensed 
 matter system. 

>and heat conduction.  

 Heat conduction is not a non-local effect.  It is a condensed 
 matter effect produced by interactions among neighboring atoms. 

 In particular, none of the physical examples you list involve 
 any energy or momentum transfers that are not expected from 
 standard physics. 

>I am
>in good company in believing that coherence plays a role in the
>underlying description of the associated Cold Fusion phenomena.  In
>particular, Julian Schwinger held a similar view.

 I don't recall that it concerned your theory however.  ;-)

>Your [Dick Blue's] view may have relevance to many situations.  But it
>has limited relevance to situations involving fully-loaded Pd.  

 What does your theory say is the reason for irreproducibility. 
 Specifically, what could be done differently so that every 
 experiment produced heat? 

>It is still true that exponential fall-off occurs in each unit cell.
>However, this fall-off repeats itself.  

 What is relevant, then, is how small it gets before doing so, 
 since what you write is true for nucleus in every lattice.  You 
 need to establish a probability that the two nuclei are in the 
 same place, not a probability that the two are far apart. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac scri.fsu.edu>     | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 18:17:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29604;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:16:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:16:39 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3657669C.4095 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:19:24 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
References: <36572827.B6A1ACC1 verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"a02Fz2.0.UE7.7GtLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24917
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi wrote:

<snip> 
> Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol.37(1998) pp.L1274-L1276
> Express Letter
> 
> Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
> within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
> Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang

I downloaded the full PDF file and sent it along to several. They in
turn could pass it along I guess. My apologies if I missed others.
Anybody else interested, I could send or if Scott is willing like the
Ohmori report.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 18:51:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA06270;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:50:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:50:12 -0800
Message-ID: <36577BF1.36AD earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:50:25 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact  11.21.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XQYXU.0.nX1.ZltLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24918
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
11.20.98
      Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:10:00 +0000
      From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:

> Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
> 11.19.98
>       Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:06:26 +0000
>       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms
> 

> --Let�s examine this proposed model in more detail.
> 
> Rich assumes that a mixture of various hydride forming elements
> concentrate at sharp points on the surface.
> 
> While sharp points will attract electrodeposition, experience has shown
> that electrodeposition also occurs over an entire surface.  Otherwise it
> would be impossible to achieve a smooth electroplated coat on normal
> material. It is difficult to predict the hydrogen content of the complex
> mixture.  Some of the impurities such as Pt, Os, and Ni dissolve very
> little hydrogen. At best, this deposited mixture would be a poor source
> of hydrogen.
> 
> Rich assumes that oxygen is supplied to the surface as small bubbles
> which react with the dissolved hydrogen.
> 
> For recombination to occur, the hydrogen and oxygen must be mixed.  This
> mixture is either within the gas bubble or it occurs as absorbed atoms
> on the surface.  If it is mixed in the gas bubble and a recombination
> reaction is initiated, the bubble will explode and the resulting energy
> will be dissipated as heat and a shock wave.  This process can not cause
> local melting.  If the mixing is on the surface, the rate of the process
> is controlled by the speed at which oxygen and hydrogen can reach the
> surface, combined with the rate at which the resulting H2O can leave, so
> as to provide room for more H and O. Since the environment is surrounded
> by water, this leaving reaction is slow. This is one reason why
> recombination on a surface within water is slow even under ideal
> conditions such as when activated Pd or Pt is used.
> 
    Ed Storms
> 
> [Further comments by Rich Murray]  

>For me, the essential and exciting core of my
> hypothesis is that 2-3 very minute microbubbles [10E-7 cm3 volume each]
> of O2 per second, for 30 days, a million events, that each attach to and
> react hotly with a 50% H2 or D2 loaded impurity spot of a number of
> metals, found in fact by Mizuno and Ohmori, Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti,
> which are all known in CANR research to substantially load with H2 or
> D2, and are to some degree catalytic of the very energetic combustion of
> 100% concentration O2 [air is only 21% O2 concentration] and H2 into
> H2O, will generate enough heat from the H2 content of a 5X10E-10 cm3 of
> Au metal, about 500 times less volume than the O2 microbubble, for each
> bubble to heat that much gold to melting, whereupon the absorbed H2 gas
> would expand the metal into the observed micro-volcano structures,
> creating about the observed total of 10 mg of Au foam deposits, and
> taking only 2 joules of the input energy to do this, about the same
> energy that heats a tiny tungsten filament to incandescence in a
> flashlight bulb, just 1 part in 20 million of the input electric
> energy.  In summary, a chemical hypothesis of some sort is reasonably
> very likely to explain the existence of the Mizuno-Ohmori micro-volcano
> structures and deposits.

Why do you ignore the points I have raised?  Any idea can be justified
by making suitable assumptions.  However, these assumptions need to be
consistent with reality or be justified by a new model of reality. Your
assumptions are not consistent with general understanding, and there is
no room in the process to introduce a new model.  In this case, two
unchangeable facts exist, the achieved temperature depends on the amount
of reactants present and the rate of their reaction.  You assume
sufficient amounts to fit your conclusion and you assume the rate is
instantaneous.  Neither assumption is even close to being correct.   

> I am not claiming or denying the possible role of metal hydrides, but
> merely relying on the well-known capacity for these metals to absorb H.
> It doesn't affect the scenario much if the loading is 10% or 100%.  The
> scenario isn't very different if much of the H is absorbed into cracks
> and channels inside the metal deposits and the gold itself, which are
> phenomena that Storms has diligently studied in Pd for years.  As Storms
> points out, Au itself does not absorb H2, so whether the reactions are
> nuclear or chemical, there must be involved some initial absorption of
> H2 or D2 into impurity deposits or into cracks, channels, and defects in
> the Au.

No, a chemical reaction requires far more hydrogen being present than
does a nuclear reaction.  Presumably a monolayer of H on the surface of
the gold might only be required for a nuclear reaction of sufficient
magnitude to blow off some gold.  This amount of H would produce an
insignificant chemical reaction. The issue must be whether suitable
nuclear products are seen. As long as the presently detected products
can be explained as localized contamination, the question remains open. 
Your explanation adds nothing.

> If the active region is a micro-peak or micro-filament, then the
> resulting concentration of localized input electric current will
> probably create enough joule heating to initiate combustion, so there
> may be no need to invoke the catalytic properties of the metals.

This is another assumption for which there is no justification based on
experience using other materials.

> Whatever the details of H2 absorption into impurities or into the Au,
> then an attached O2 microbubble can only react with the H at the surface
> of the metal, creating a burning zone that will suffice to very quickly
> melt more metal and expose and liberate more H as the metal becomes a
> high surface area foam. 

Another assumption which assumes the conclusion. A burning zone has no
reality.  You need to visualize exactly what is happening. When O2 and
H2 burn in a �burning zone�, heat is carried way in the resulting hot
gas.  Only an object located in this gas stream gets hot. In this case,
the bubble would be heated and expand. Very little energy would flow to
the gold. In addition, a high surface area foam will only succeed in
dissipating the localized energy more effectively. This the opposite of
what you want to happen.

> I trust that in the O2 microbubble the ordinary
> diffusion of O2, H2, and H2O, as the temperature rises, will be fast
> enough to ensure the continuation and acceleration of a fast burning,
> but non-explosive process.  

This is another assumption that is opposite to experience.  Higher
temperatures will expand the bubble and this process will carry away
heat. For mixing to occur, hydrogen must come from some source.  If the
source is a hydride, this hydrogen is only released by the absorption of
heat. Again, energy is lost. Furthermore, the amount of hydride-forming
elements at any one location is only a few micromoles.  This is hardly
enough material to furnish the energy you require even if you could
supply an infinite amount of oxygen.

>I trust there will be a long enough burn for
> each microbubble to substantially heat the underlying Au, since the
> Mizuno-Ohmori micro-volcanos are in fact mostly Au. 

Why would it heat the gold?  More likely the released energy would heat
the surrounding water or gas.  These materials can remove energy more
rapidly through convection than by conduction into the gold.

>Only the very tiny
> area under each microbubble, 2-3 events per second, is heated. The
> details must be quite complicated, and would deserve the attention of an
> expert on near-explosive combustion processes.  The burning region would
> be insulated from the rest of the electrolyte by the presence of the
> remaining unreacted O2 microbubble. Once the O2 bubble was consumed,
> then direct contact with the electrolyte would quench the foaming metal,
> leaving the characteric well-formed, hideous lily volcano structures.
> 
> If my scenario is roughly right, then there should be little difference
> between H2 or D2 in producing the micro-volcanos.  This would be a
> strong confirmation that the reactions are chemical, not nuclear.  Also,
> the Au surface may be playing a unique role in promoting the formation
> of micro-volcanos, because its extreme ductility and relative chemical
> inertness at near melting temperatures is necessary for a metal foam to
> form.  Has Ag or Al been tried?  They would probably form insoluble
> oxides.

If you are going to go down this path, you should point out that the
deposited potassium from the electrolyte can form a low melting alloy at
the surface of the gold, thereby making melting much easier.  You should
also point out that under suitable conditions, microsparks can occur at
the surface, thereby producing a plasma which could cause local melting.
In addition, you might even suggest that the observed impurities
migrated to the surface from the gold its self, being moved by
electromigration to a more chemically stable state on the surface. 
Although the solubility of hydrogen in gold is small, hydrogen will
diffuse in the metal. This diffusion process might carry along metal
impurities and concentrate them where the diffusing hydrogen leaves the
surface. Enhanced diffusion under this condition is a known phenomenon
in other metals.

Clearly this observation needs to be studied in more detail but any
attempt at a prosaic explanation MUST try to be plausible.

Ed Storms

[Comments by Rich Murray:  Thanks, Ed!  I visualize the burning zone at
the bottom of an 100% O2 micro-bubble attached to a 50% H2 loaded metal
impurity area on the Au surface.  The H2 is absorbed, not present as a
hydride.  Somehow, some of the O2 molecules react with the surface H2,
forming H2O vapor and releasing heat right there in the midst of the
metal, since that's where the H2 is.  So immediately the surface of the
metal is heated, its H2 is freed to expand and react with more O2, and
the process accelerates, freeing more and more H2, depositing more and
more heat right there on the disrupted and softening metal, increasing
the area available for reaction, increasing the local temperature,
expanding the absorbed H2, until a turbulent burning layer of foamy
molted metal is well established.  I suppose this happens so rapidly
that there is no time for the O2 bubble as a whole to expand
significantly, or for significant heat to escape the burning layer.  The
outcome might variously be: 
1. The whole O2 bubble is consumed, leaving an attached bubble of H2O
which cools or separates, leaving the metal foam to be quenched into a
porous solid.
2. The O2-H2O bubble is blown off after partial combustion.
3. Various chemical impurities lead to solid combustion products that
meld with the molten foam, or dissolve into the electrolyte.
4. An actual micro-explosion blows away the entire spot, leaving a
micro-crater.
5. All of the above, and more.  Are the micro-volcanos imaged by Mizuno,
Ohmori, and Enyo as uniform as their published photographs indicate?

Obviously, I am not competent to work out the details of all these
scenarios.  The point is to set up a trailhead, where others may see
possibilities for interesting treks.  I have shown that there is a
remarkable chemical energy density available, when a 100% O2
micro-bubble is in contact with a 50% H2 loaded metal micro-spot, well
enough to melt the metal volume that contains the H2, so that any spark,
however small, will tend to ignite the whole surface in contact with the
O2 bubble.  Another possible source of ignition of a micro-bubble are
the natural background of cosmic rays and impurities like K-40.  Ed
mentioned the presence of K in the electrolyte.  I am very interested in
his suggestions that plasma microsparks can occur, and that impurities
in the Au can migrate to the surface during heating.  It could be that
the actual number of O2 microbubbles is much greater than the number
that happen to ignite.  Would stray UV light photons suffice to cause
ignition?  

Observation of the active surface via optical microscope or fast
photomultiplier tubes, and also monitoring for acoustic signals would
make it easy to make permanent recordings and establish the time and
space density of bursts, their distribution of durations, their energy
range, and the spectrum of released radiation.  Perhaps the electrolyte
could be a very thin film on top of a horizontal Au film, so that only a
little of the emitted radiations are absorbed in the electrolyte, and
imaging of the whole surface would be easy.  Au can be deposited on a
cheap charge coupled device image array, used in digital cameras, which
would allow another way to directly record the bursts.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 19:26:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15790;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:23:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:23:41 -0800
Message-ID: <006f01be15c6$ead220e0$af57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re; Sliding Friction Casimir Plates, and ZPE
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:18:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Olwrh1.0.es3.zEuLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24919
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The Lennard-Jones Potential:

+             <---- R  ----->

   \
0----------------------------------------
     \    /
      \  /
       \/
_

Says that as molecules get beyond the potential
minumum the force between them becomes repulsive (apparently the same story
for the hydrogen electron).

So, if say a block of metal at rest on another
experiences a break-away coefficient of friction and then a much lower
sliding friction coefficient, is ZPE Extraction (O/U) coming into play here?

Interesting to watch the rocket sleds; tons on metal-to-metal contact and
yet when they are up to speed they act like greased lightning. But when it
stops. :-)

Need a little Calorimetry here? The Casimir plate force most likely is this
and the van der Waals forces, and stops at the minimum potential point on
the Lennard-Jones curve. What say thee, Hal. :-)

Is this where Larry Whartons "Negative Viscosity" kicks in?

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 19:41:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA22080;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:40:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:40:10 -0800
Message-ID: <007c01be15c9$37a62e00$af57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: e) Lennard-Jones Potential (http://130.64.13.136/MMLCourse96/BMM4_3/BMM4X5F3-30
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:35:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE158E.8424DBE0"
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: <"zRaXM3.0.wO5.PUuLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24920
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_001F_01BE158E.8424DBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


[Next] [Previous] [Contents]=20

Molecular Mechanics


e) Lennard-Jones Potential
The combination of fluctuating dipole - induced dipole attraction =
between atoms and the repulsion caused by the Pauli exclusion principle =
is often grouped together with the name Lennard-Jones potential, which =
has the form  with , the repulsive parameter for atoms i and j, , the =
attractive parameter, and , the distance between the nuclei. An =
alternative way of writing the L-J term is

 where  is called the van der Waals radius and  is the van der Waals =
potential energy well depth. Values for  can be found from x-ray =
crystallographic data (closest approach distances of non-bonded atoms).



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------


Molecular Modeling - 11 OCT 1996
[Next] [Previous] [Contents]



------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE158E.8424DBE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>e) Lennard-Jones Potential</TITLE><BASE =

href=3Dhttp://130.64.13.136/MMLCourse96/BMM4_3/BMM4X5F3-30.html><!DOCTYPE=
 HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><!-- Generated by Harlequin WebMaker 2.2.6 (30-Apr-1996)=0DMacintosh =
Common Lisp Version 3.0kp2p2 [AppGen 3.0b1kp2p2] --><A=20
name=3DHEADING30></A><A href=3D"BMM4X5F3-31.html">[Next] </A><A=20
href=3D"BMM4X5F3-29.html">[Previous] </A><A=20
href=3D"../CONTENTS/Contents-1.html">[Contents] </A></P>
<P>Molecular Mechanics</P>
<P><A name=3DHEADING30-0></A></P>
<H1>e) Lennard-Jones Potential</H1>
<P>The combination of fluctuating dipole - induced dipole attraction =
between=20
atoms and the repulsion caused by the Pauli exclusion principle is often =
grouped=20
together with the name Lennard-Jones potential, which has the form <IMG=20
height=3D78 src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-27.gif" width=3D98> with <IMG =
height=3D30=20
src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-28.gif" width=3D22>, the repulsive parameter =
for atoms i=20
and j, <IMG height=3D30 src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-29.gif" width=3D22>, =
the attractive=20
parameter, and <IMG height=3D30 src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-30.gif" =
width=3D22>, the=20
distance between the nuclei. An alternative way of writing the L-J term =
is</P>
<P><IMG height=3D51 src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-31.gif" width=3D192> where =
<IMG height=3D15=20
src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-32.gif" width=3D7> is called the van der Waals =
radius and=20
<IMG height=3D30 src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-33.gif" width=3D14> is the van =
der Waals=20
potential energy well depth. Values for <IMG height=3D15=20
src=3D"BMM4X5F3-30-image-34.gif" width=3D7> can be found from x-ray =
crystallographic=20
data (closest approach distances of non-bonded atoms).</P>
<P><!-- TOC -->
<HR>

<P></P>
<ADDRESS>Molecular Modeling - 11 OCT 1996</ADDRESS>
<P><A href=3D"BMM4X5F3-31.html">[Next] </A><A =
href=3D"BMM4X5F3-29.html">[Previous]=20
</A><A href=3D"../CONTENTS/Contents-1.html">[Contents]</A></P><A=20
href=3D"http://www.harlequin.com/webmaker"></A>
<P></P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE158E.8424DBE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 21 20:53:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA09868;
	Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:51:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:51:12 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:51:06 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Excess donations!
In-Reply-To: <01BE1495.96624DA0 uzl.ucdavis.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981121114854.12697A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"j84b71.0.5Q2.0XvLs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24921
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Dan Quickert wrote:

> hmm... I think we may have an interesting problem in market dynamics 
> here...
> 
> I've been donating annually, and would be happy to put up a separate 
> donation for each; not sure though that I would want to donate to vortexb-l 
> commensurate with its volume!

Lists are flat rate here.

Your donations exceeded ISP costs awhile back, even with added megabytes
of online archives.  I was intending to buy more services myself, but the
accumulated donations became non-trivial.  Additional lists and archive
space easily pay for themselves, even with each $10 donation including all
services.

Do vortex-L users have suggestions for any donation-funded future
improvements?  

  At the top of my list is to hire somebody to write (or find) a good
  perl or unix search script for the archives.  The couple of them that
  I've seen are too primitive. 

  I'm going to start a separate account so that Scott Little has access
  to moderator controls and to the archive space for vortcor. 

  "Vanity plates" domain name.  It's easier to recall http://www.vortexL.com
  than http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html.  If vortex-L
  eventually persists across more than one moderator, a vortexL domain
  name would eliminate the ISP changes which give 404 NOT FOUND in all
  the search engines and personal bookmarks.

  I could set up a web BBS system.  However, the Society for Amateur
  Science tried this, replacing their list with the WebX bbs server.
  Their message traffic dropped nearly to zero.  A BBS system is vast,
  like hundreds of low-traffic lists.  Users can't easily find each other.
  An email list forces all the threads into the same channel, and users
  can only block the ones they don't want, rather than trying to find the
  ones they DO want.  see http://www.thesphere.com/SAS/WebX.cgi

  Delusions of grandure: Should vortex-L become a nonprofit org and troll
  for big donors? Send out mailings, design t-shirts, start a foundation
  for awards to support research?  Finance a group to go out and meet
  Potapov on his own ground?  Or do vortex users just want to fund a
  REALLY HUGE chunk of dry ice for the motel pool at the next Infinite
  Energy CF symposium in New Hampshire?  :)

Seriously, I suspect that tens of thousands of people would pony up
$10-$100 dollars if it was guaranteed to go towards the funding of
scientific research into topics which are far outside the mainstream.
Where can people go to make such donations at the moment?  Where is a
website which can take my credit card, and is also a legit, registered
nonprofit organization that puts money where it actually will do some
good? IE magazine does come close, but it's not nonprofit, and does not
strongly push the fact that they're pursuing research and need funding.

ISP Expenses:
   $60/yr flat rate per list (at eskimo, the lo-traf lists support the higher)
   $12/yr for each 10megs of online storage
   $????? therapy and hair-loss treatments for moderator (joking!)


> The only problem I see with vortexb-l being a separate paid subscription
> is that we want to _encourage_ certain discussions to go there... in
> fact, maybe that list should be free, supported by donations from those
> of us who would like to keep vortex-l and vortcor-l less cluttered. 

As you see above, a handful of $10 donations easily supports everything. 
Since the vortexB list is only for use by regular vortex-L subscribers, I
intend to alter the rules a bit so nonvortex users don't swarm in and take
advantage of it.

If anyone would like to run an independant list which replaces any of
Woolman's "in search of" lists, you can subscribe remotely to eskimo (via
telnet), or you can use the free list servers below.  (Me, I miss seeing
an "antigravity" discussion.)

  http://www.listbot.com
  http://www.egroups.com
  http://www.onelist.com

The above services are free, but advertizing is added to all messages. 
I've never tried them, so I don't know if any one of them has unreliable
software or hidden gotchas.  Perhaps Woolman can be contacted, and his
last subscriber lists used to advertize the startup of a new list on a
similar topic.

> Question: is it possible to make it so some people get read-only service? 
> If so it would be possible to allow _anyone_ to listen, but only _paid_ 
> subscribers to talk. Not sure where I stand on that. (And if the charge 
> could be metered by the kilobyte... ;-)

Some people would pay more to lurk only, with no requirement that they
post.  Others would pay more for an archived, moderated forum which lets
them participate in civilized on-topic discussion (remember, s.p.f is
free!)

When it looked like the WIRED article might flood vortex with non-science
people, I was thinking of allowing free lurking, but adding a barrier by
requiring donations before posting was allowed.  Or should there be
Vortex-C, a private list for contributors?

vortex-L
vortcor-list
vortexB-L
vortex-announce

Did anyone notice the new Vortex-L realtime chat feature?  I had signed up
with one of these long ago, but let it lapse.  It's back.  I signed up
with the Escribe's no-cost www archive service, which has an optional
Java-based chat screen. Those with modern browsers are free to organize a
Vortex-L online conference as needed.  And once the Escribe archive builds
up for a few months, the search function there will become useful.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 22 02:52:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA08233;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <009501be1605$54372420$af57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  e (http://www1.che.ufl.edu/meeting/1996/annual/session/73/e/index.html)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 03:43:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE15CA.382553A0"
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: <"iGa161.0.V02.5o-Ls" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24922
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_002F_01BE15CA.382553A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=20
1996 Annual Meeting Session 73
Paper 73e
Tuesday, November 12 - 2:00PM
Grand BR


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

Formation of Microbubbles by Electric Fields and Current*=20
By:=20
Won-Tae Shin, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
Susan Burns, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
Sotira Yiacoumi, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
Costas Tsouris[Speaker], Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
=20
    See abstract below.=20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Abstract:

In many industrial and environmental processes there is a need to form =
microbubbles of a gas in a liquid phase with the objective to enhance =
process efficiency. In such operations, mechanical means are =
traditionally used offering limited control on the size distribution of =
bubbles. An alternative way to generate fine bubbles of relatively =
uniform size is by electric means. Two approaches based on different =
mechanisms are investigated. The first approach utilizes an electric =
field between an electrified capillary tube, through which a gas phase =
is introduced in a liquid phase, and an electrically grounded electrode =
immersed in the liquid. Due to the electric field, an electric stress =
appears on the gas-liquid interface. Depending on the strength of the =
electric field, the electric stress may be strong enough to disrupt the =
interface and form small bubbles. It has been found that, as the applied =
voltage is increased, a bubble dripping mode gradually changes to a =
spraying mode. A voltage range exists at which both bubble dripping and =
spraying coexist. Pressure measurements inside the capillary revealed =
that the pressure increases significantly as the applied voltage is =
increased. The mechanism of this phenomenon and the effect of several =
parameters, such as applied voltage, distance between electrodes, and =
inside diameter of the capillary, will be presented. In a second =
approach, hydrogen and oxygen microbubbles are formed by electric =
current. This method of producing microbubbles has been introduced for =
the purification of drinking water via electroflotation. Experiments =
have been conducted to measure the bubble size distribution and =
elucidate the effect of such process parameters as ionic strength, pH, =
and electric current on the size and volumetric flow-rate of the =
produced bubbles. Energy requirements per unit area of interface and =
time will be presented for both methods of microbubble generation.=20

_________________________=20

* Research sponsored by Division of Chemical Sciences, Office of Basic =
Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract =
DE-AC05-96OR22464 with Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp.=20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Author Information:

        Won-Tae Shin=20
        Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and =
Environmental Engineering
        Organization/Affiliation Name: Georgia Institute of Technology
       =20
            Atlanta, Georgia
            U.S.A. 30332-0512=20
        Susan Burns=20
        Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and =
Environmental Engineering
        Organization/Affiliation Name: Georgia Institute of Technology
       =20
            Atlanta, Georgia
            U.S.A. 30332-0512=20
        Sotira Yiacoumi=20
        Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and =
Environmental Engineering
        Organization/Affiliation Name: Georgia Institute of Technology
        Email Address: <syiacoumi ce.gatech.edu>
       =20
            Atlanta, Georgia
            U.S.A. 30332-0512=20
        Phone Number: (404) 894-2639
        Fax Number: (404) 894-8266
       =20
        Costas Tsouris=20
        Organization/Affiliation Department: Chemical Technology =
Division
        Organization/Affiliation Name: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
        Email Address: <tsourisc ornl.gov>
        Postal Address: P.O. Box 2008
       =20
            Oak Ridge, Tennessee
            U.S.A. 37831-6226=20
        Phone Number: (423) 241-3246
        Fax Number: (423) 574-6442
       =20

Last Updated:Sun Apr 7 21:12:39 1996

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
[Top] [Technical Program] [Sessions] [Areas] [Date/Time] =
[Chairs/Authors] [1996 Annual Meeting] [AIChE Web] [Help]=20
(c) Copyright 1996 AIChE Web. See also: Limits of Service.=20

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE15CA.382553A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>American Institute of Chemical =
Engineers 1996 Annual Meeting: e</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www1.che.ufl.edu/meeting/1996/annual/session/73/e/index.htm=
l><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//Netscape Comm. Corp.//DTD HTML//EN"><LINK=20
href=3D"mailto:webmaster www.aiche.org" rev=3Dmade>
<META content=3D"Dale W. Kirmse" name=3DAuthor>
<META content=3D"Meeting Programs" name=3DClassification>
<META content=3Dpublic name=3Dsecurity>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><A name=3DTOP></A><A =
href=3D"http://www.aiche.org/index.html"><IMG=20
align=3Dleft alt=3D"AIChE Web" hspace=3D10 =
src=3D"../../../icons/aiche.gif"=20
vspace=3D5></A>=20
<H4><A href=3D"../../../index.html">1996 Annual Meeting</A> <A=20
href=3D"../../index.html">Session</A> <A =
href=3D"../index.html">73</A></H4>
<H3><A href=3D"../index.html">Paper</A> 73e</H3>
<H4><A href=3D"../../by_time/index.html">Tuesday, November 12</A> -=20
2:00PM<BR>Grand BR</H4><BR clear=3Dall>
<HR>

<H1>Formation of Microbubbles by Electric Fields and Current* </H1>By:=20
<DD>Won-Tae Shin, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
<DD>Susan Burns, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
<DD>Sotira Yiacoumi, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA=20
<DD>Costas Tsouris[Speaker], Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, =
TN
<HR>
=20
<BLOCKQUOTE>See abstract below. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
Abstract:<BR>
<P>In many industrial and environmental processes there is a need to =
form=20
microbubbles of a gas in a liquid phase with the objective to enhance =
process=20
efficiency. In such operations, mechanical means are traditionally used =
offering=20
limited control on the size distribution of bubbles. An alternative way =
to=20
generate fine bubbles of relatively uniform size is by electric means. =
Two=20
approaches based on different mechanisms are investigated. The first =
approach=20
utilizes an electric field between an electrified capillary tube, =
through which=20
a gas phase is introduced in a liquid phase, and an electrically =
grounded=20
electrode immersed in the liquid. Due to the electric field, an electric =
stress=20
appears on the gas-liquid interface. Depending on the strength of the =
electric=20
field, the electric stress may be strong enough to disrupt the interface =
and=20
form small bubbles. It has been found that, as the applied voltage is =
increased,=20
a bubble dripping mode gradually changes to a spraying mode. A voltage =
range=20
exists at which both bubble dripping and spraying coexist. Pressure =
measurements=20
inside the capillary revealed that the pressure increases significantly =
as the=20
applied voltage is increased. The mechanism of this phenomenon and the =
effect of=20
several parameters, such as applied voltage, distance between =
electrodes, and=20
inside diameter of the capillary, will be presented. In a second =
approach,=20
hydrogen and oxygen microbubbles are formed by electric current. This =
method of=20
producing microbubbles has been introduced for the purification of =
drinking=20
water via electroflotation. Experiments have been conducted to measure =
the=20
bubble size distribution and elucidate the effect of such process =
parameters as=20
ionic strength, pH, and electric current on the size and volumetric =
flow-rate of=20
the produced bubbles. Energy requirements per unit area of interface and =
time=20
will be presented for both methods of microbubble generation.=20
<P>_________________________=20
<P>* Research sponsored by Division of Chemical Sciences, Office of =
Basic Energy=20
Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464 =
with=20
Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp.=20
<HR>
Author Information:<BR>
<UL>
    <DL>
        <DT><B>Won-Tae Shin</B>=20
        <DD>Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and=20
        Environmental Engineering<BR>Organization/Affiliation Name: =
Georgia=20
        Institute of Technology<BR>
        <UL>Atlanta, Georgia<BR>U.S.A. 30332-0512 </UL>
        <DT><B>Susan Burns</B>=20
        <DD>Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and=20
        Environmental Engineering<BR>Organization/Affiliation Name: =
Georgia=20
        Institute of Technology<BR>
        <UL>Atlanta, Georgia<BR>U.S.A. 30332-0512 </UL>
        <DT><B>Sotira Yiacoumi</B>=20
        <DD>Organization/Affiliation Department: School of Civil and=20
        Environmental Engineering<BR>Organization/Affiliation Name: =
Georgia=20
        Institute of Technology<BR>Email Address: &lt;<A=20
        =
href=3D"mailto:syiacoumi ce.gatech.edu">syiacoumi@ce.gatech.edu</A>&gt;<B=
R>
        <UL>Atlanta, Georgia<BR>U.S.A. 30332-0512 </UL>Phone Number: =
(404)=20
        894-2639<BR>Fax Number: (404) 894-8266<BR>
        <DT><B>Costas Tsouris</B>=20
        <DD>Organization/Affiliation Department: Chemical Technology=20
        Division<BR>Organization/Affiliation Name: Oak Ridge National=20
        Laboratory<BR>Email Address: &lt;<A=20
        =
href=3D"mailto:tsourisc ornl.gov">tsourisc@ornl.gov</A>&gt;<BR>Postal=20
        Address: P.O. Box 2008<BR>
        <UL>Oak Ridge, Tennessee<BR>U.S.A. 37831-6226 </UL>Phone Number: =
(423)=20
        241-3246<BR>Fax Number: (423) =
574-6442<BR></DD></DL></UL><BR>Last Updated:Sun=20
Apr 7 21:12:39 1996<BR>
<HR>
[<A href=3D"#TOP" name=3DBOTTOM>Top</A>] [<A =
href=3D"../../../program.html">Technical=20
Program</A>] [<A href=3D"../../../session/index.html">Sessions</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../session/by_area/index.html">Areas</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../session/by_time/index.html">Date/Time</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../particip/index.html">Chairs/Authors</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../index.html">1996 Annual Meeting</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../../../../index.html">AIChE Web</A>] [<A=20
href=3D"../../../../../../info/help.html">Help</A>]<!-- COPYRIGHT -->=20
<H6><A href=3D"../../../../../../info/copyright.html">(c) Copyright =
1996</A> <A=20
href=3D"../../../../../../info/about_aiche_web.html">AIChE Web</A>. See =
also:<A=20
href=3D"../../../../../../info/limits.html"> Limits of Service</A>.=20
</H6></DD></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE15CA.382553A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 03:31:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08758;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 03:30:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 03:30:35 -0800
Message-ID: <009f01be160a$efeb1e80$af57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Microbubble Collapse, Lennard-Jones Potential and ZPE
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 04:25:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hp9JD3.0.m82.RN_Ls" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24923
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Wandering further into the forest looking for trees that Hal's dog might
have missed... :-)

When a bubble collapses the molecules are driven into close proximity such
that the
Lennard-Jones Potential goes beyond the negative minimum "well". This seems
to be where the ZPE extraction, or the Schwinger-Feynman-Tomanaga "borrowing
of energy from the vacuum" by the Electromagnetic Interaction; dE = hbar/dt
takes place resulting in O/U effects. Same difference,Hal?

If the Microbubbles can be made more efficiently using the technique
outlined in the AICHE abstract posted....

Regards,  Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 05:43:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02455;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:39:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:39:49 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981122134706.00effeb4 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: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:47:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"uCIGn3.0.Dc.bG1Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24924
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

Thanks for the reference Hamdi.


At 10:52 PM 11/21/98 +0200, you wrote:
>http://jjap.kopas.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle?magazine=JJAP&volume=37&number=1
1A&page=L1274-L1276
>
>Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol.37(1998) pp.L1274-L1276 
>Part 2, No. 11A, 1 November 1998 
>
>
Express Letter
>
>Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
>within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell 
>
>Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang 
>
>Osaka University, 11-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan 
>
>(Received September 22, 1998 ; accepted for publication October 7, 1998 )
>
>Abstract:
>
>Both D2O-cell and H2O-cell are constructed with the same Double Structure
>Cathode (DS-cathode), and connected in series as a ``Double-cell'' to
examine >the energy generation under the same electrolytic current. D2O-cell
generates >tremendously excess energy during a long period such as over
several thousand >hours, but any energy is never generated in H2O-cell when
the chemical energy >is subtracted in both cells.

What chemical energy are they refering to? What is 'any energy'? Is the
hydrogen going into atomic state? Are there special ways of precipitating
palladium black to create lattice variation? I don't think hydrogen is going
into atomic state. The palladium black lattice is probably dimensionally
tuned to 'anvil' (as Horace H coined) deuterium.

Regards;
Dennis




Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 05:54:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA09176;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:53:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:53:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122085523.008388c0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:55:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated 
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981122134706.00effeb4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OtPZX2.0.IF2.LT1Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24925
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 08:47 AM 11/22/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>>Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol.37(1998) pp.L1274-L1276 
>>Part 2, No. 11A, 1 November 1998 

>>Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
>>within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell 
>>Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang 
>>Osaka University, 11-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan 
>>(Received September 22, 1998 ; accepted for publication October 7, 1998 )
>>
>>Abstract:
>>Both D2O-cell and H2O-cell are constructed with the same Double Structure
>>Cathode (DS-cathode), and connected in series as a ``Double-cell'' to
>examine the energy generation under the same electrolytic current. D2O-cell
>generates tremendously excess energy during a long period such as over
>several thousand >hours, but any energy is never generated in H2O-cell when
>the chemical energy >is subtracted in both cells.
>
>What chemical energy are they refering to? What is 'any energy'? 

  Seems like "excess" above input and chemical energy of constituents
in the usuual sense.
    [Could be a translation error, of course]

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

> Is the >hydrogen going into atomic state? 

   yes.  Between the diatomic gas evolved and the
hydrogen (or deuterons) in water are atomic hydrogens on
the surface of the electrode.  [Check Uhlig and/or Bockris texts.]

    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 06:02:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12180;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 06:01:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 06:01:23 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981122140821.00eed69c 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: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:08:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hudson Seminar and CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"p5zxg.0.E-2.oa1Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24926
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 04:30 PM 11/21/98 -0900, you wrote:
>At 3:29 AM 11/21/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>[snip]
>>Here is a quote from one of David Hudson's seminars.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>>we got a copy of Pons &
>>>Fleischman's paper before they publicly announced. It was sent to
>>>GE for their review.
>
>This sounds incredible.  I have never seen any reference to preprints or
>other information being available prior to the press release.  Maybe
>Fleischmann or Pons will have someting to say about that at the next ICCF?
>Others here who have been more involved with the early events or have had
>access to the CF archives at Cornell may have something to add on that.
>There were not even any referees involved.
>
>
>>>It was their electric chemical catalyst
>>>division who works with Palladium. They handed it to me and said,
>>>"Dave, look here. What's coming out here?" Pons and Fleischman
>>>were putting a Palladium electrode in this Lithium Deuterate
>>>solution. Lithium is the third element on the Periodic Table.
>>>Lithium will dissolve into the Palladium just like Hydrogen. It's
>>>tiny and it goes in between the metal-metal bonds, just like
>>>Hydrogen, and it weakens the s-p bonding and little by little,
>>>the Palladium begins to disaggregate from the other palladium
>>>atoms and go to the high-spin state.
>
>
>There is no static mechanism, or mechanism present in a CF cell, that I
>know of which can store significant energy by changing the nucleus spin
>state.  Long term runnning CF cells are reported to produce so much excess
>energy that a magnetic field of that energy would be detectable blocks
>away.


This is where I feel that most of the energy is produced from the atomic to
diatomic dissociation - recombination cycle.


>>>What they have reported is
>>>that after several days, there is this tremendous release of
>>>energy and it's more energy than the amperage that went into the
>>>sample. What they haven't figured out is that a superconductor
>>>feeds on the magnetic field, not on the amperage.
>
>The magnetic field in a superconductor only rises to match the externally
>applied magetic field, which in the case of CF expriments is very small.
>Even if the CF cell were placed in a strong magnetic field, the energy in
>the superconductor would be limited by the critical field strength, at
>which value the the superconductor stops superconducting .  Near that point
>the amount of current that can be supported by the superconductor
>*diminishes*.
>
>
>>>And so
>>>literally, when they pull the voltage potential in it, there's
>>>no amperage flowing. The amperage only puts the Lithium into the
>>>Palladium. That's the only purpose of the amperage is to
>>>electroplate the Lithium onto the Palladium and cause the metal-
>>>metal bonding of the Palladium to break and form what Pons and
>>>Fleischman call, and this is their scientific technical term,
>>>"the white crud on the surface of the Palladium." And that white
>>>crud is the superconductor. And it literally builds up energy.
>>>Builds up energy. Kind of like you think of a capacitor building
>>>up energy.
>
>
>There is no mechanism described which can build up large amounts of energy
>in a thin white film on the Pd electrode.  This is somewhat like saying
>trains store energy.  I am going to store up the energy to run the United
>States for a day in trains.  There may be grains of truth, but it all falls
>apart if you even have the slightest fell for the real numbers.

Atomic to diatomic dissociation - recombination cycle.

>>>It's flowing more and more light and it's feeding on
>>>the magnetic potential. More and more light, more and more light,
>>>until it reaches what's called HC2, the greatest amount of
>>>magnetic field that superconductor can sustain. and at that
>>>point, it collapses.
>
>
>This sounds nonsensical.  There must be some wild new theory behind this.
>It is certainly not conventional.  Some here disagree, but I'll agree with
>Carl Sagan here that the extraordinary claims require extraodinary proof.
>Not only are the claims extraordinary, but so is the vocabulary.  On the
>web page referenced below, there is an extensive new vocabulary being used,
>where various existing conventional terms are used in new and bizarre ways.
>Not only is there a bunch of new or abused terms, there are lots of new
>but unexplained effects anticipated.
>
>I have some experience with blue, orange, and white glow in electrolytic
>experiments, but I see no reason to invoke nuclear reactions or
>superconductivity to explain them when simple oxidation reactions will do.

I've heard of the blue glow. What might account for the orange or white glow
though?



>>>        In another paper it says "We will find
>>>that a superconducting material like Palladium is going into a
>>>state that is much like superconductivity when it causes the cold
>>>fusion reaction."
>
>
>The "superconducting state" referred to here is not like any other I know
>of.  For one thing it is above room temperature, so discovery of this state
>in 1989 would have been worthy of a Nobel Prize.  There has been plenty of
>time for replication and confirmation.  There is no condition present in CF
>to create a known superconducting state in the conventional sense, i.e.
>paired electrons acting in accord with the BCS Theory.  I suppose a vacuum
>is superconducting, in the sense that it has no resistance, but a vacuum
>does not exhibit robustly the effects we associate with superconductivity,
>like the Meissner effect.  Superconductivity in terms of one or a few atoms
>has no meaning in the conventional senseto my knowledge.
>

Monatomics arrange themselves on a quantum wave.

>
>>> And they're figuring this out. They're seeing
>>>what 1 am describing,  but they don't understand this, yet.
>>>Palladium specifically can become superdeformed. Palladium will
>>>come apart by just looking at it wrong. So certainly 'when this
>>>flux collapse occurs, you'll get all sorts of elements that
>>>shouldn't have been there before.
>
>
>Even if energy could be stored in the nucleus, and even though palladium
>deforms, no method is suggested here for using that energy to achieve the
>exchange of nuclear components.  This reminds me of the cartoon of a guy at
>the blackboard with a giant flowchart where all paths from start to end
>flow through a central block labeled "Then a Miracle Happens".
>Unfortunately, this is not an unusual attribute when it comes to CF
>theories, so even if there is no more info on this David Hudson is not
>alone.  8^)


>>http://monatomic.earth.com/
>>
>>Well people, what do you think? I say this is it. This is how you get the
>>weird particles. It took over 5 million bucks (as I recall) in research to
>>discover monatomics. Comments?
>
>
>In looking through the above web page I see no credible theory, or
>experiments demonstrating anything to substantiate the claims or even the
>vocabulary being used.  It is another world.  The only thing giving the
>page any credibility that I can can find are the pointers to various
>university physics teaching resources - which are not at all germane,
>especially to the decription which misleads you to believe you are being
>referred to a "monatomic" experimental resources page, when all it is is an
>undergraduate physics page.  This looks like a cheap ruse that would only
>work on the most unsophisticated interested parties, i.e. potential
>investors.

You mean this page?

http://monatomic.earth.com/database/research/

>If there were some good conclusive experiments posted demonstrating free
>energy or even superconductivity, as per the "monatomic" theory, one of the
>crucial ingredients of the posed ideas, then this might be interesting.
>
>There does not seem to be any emphasis on independent replication or
>disclosure, real warning signals for something that has been around a long
>time yet is still being hyped.  Maybe I missed something?

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/hudson.txt


>I somebody asked me for money on this basis I would run away, run away!

Too late!


Regards;
Dennis





Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 06:18:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16077;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 06:17:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 06:17:33 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981122142430.00ef394c 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: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:24:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated  
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ako-h2.0.7x3.zp1Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24927
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 08:55 AM 11/22/98 -0500, you wrote:

(snip)

>> Is the >hydrogen going into atomic state? 
>
>   yes.  Between the diatomic gas evolved and the
>hydrogen (or deuterons) in water are atomic hydrogens on
>the surface of the electrode.  [Check Uhlig and/or Bockris texts.]

I mean within the double structure cathode. The paper says that the
"Hydrogen-reaction" is never created within highly hydrogenerated (sp?) solid.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 07:23:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02130;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 07:22:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 07:22:18 -0800
From: Puthoff aol.com
Message-ID: <fad348eb.36582bff aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:21:35 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re; Sliding Friction Casimir Plates, and ZPE
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZxF9X.0.9X.gm2Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24928
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

May well be.  Unfortunately, the straight Casimir force comes from a
conservative potential, so no way to recycle as it stands.

BTW, the rocket sled won't fit into our calorimeter.  We'd have to upgrade!
:-)

Hal

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 07:46:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08027;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 07:45:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 07:45:34 -0800
From: Puthoff aol.com
Message-ID: <4416ed71.365830eb aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:42:35 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re: Microbubble Collapse, Lennard-Jones Potential and ZPE
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"_FJUt2.0.Lz1.U63Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24929
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


In a message dated 11/22/98 5:31:15 AM, you wrote:

<<When a bubble collapses the molecules are driven into close proximity such

that the

Lennard-Jones Potential goes beyond the negative minimum "well". This seems

to be where the ZPE extraction, or the Schwinger-Feynman-Tomanaga "borrowing

of energy from the vacuum" by the Electromagnetic Interaction; dE = hbar/dt

takes place resulting in O/U effects. Same difference,Hal?>>

Our interest in Roger Stringham's device comes from this kind of possibility.

Hal

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 08:48:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20015;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:47:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:47:55 -0800
Message-ID: <00d501be1637$439c9460$af57fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "George" <gsparb juno.com>
Subject: Re: Sliding Friction Casimir Plates, and ZPE
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:42:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"t8OeB1.0.fu4.x04Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24930
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

No need to "upgrade" your calorimeter to handle a rocket sled Hal. :-)

A piece of 1 1/2 inch steel barstock sectioned into two or four "pie"
segments with key-slots made to match two or four key-slots on the driving
shaft and rotated in a close-fit housing with your calorimeter water flow
going through it, will do just fine.

BTW. I don't trust water-type (Prony Brake) Dynamometers. Ever notice how
brakes can fade and how quickly you can dry out wet ones with a touch of the
brake pedal?

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 11:31:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA09452;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:30:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:30:32 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:28:21 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Subject: FREENRG-L  John Hutchison is now online!?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981122111419.29696C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bYaR-.0.WJ2.OP6Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24931
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Hey, since when does John Hutchison (of 'Hutchison effect' fame) have a
website?!   Guess I'm just otta the loop!   :)   
I've invited him to join or lurk on FREENRG-L.

Check it out:

  http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html

He notes that he will be restarting his research in the near future.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 22 12:22:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32644;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:21:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:21:49 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27e1e52449b [208.228.222.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:28:28 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated	  within D2O-Cell
 and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"xwShi1.0.wz7.T97Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24932
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:47 AM 11/22/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
[snip]
>I don't think hydrogen is going
>into atomic state. The palladium black lattice is probably dimensionally
>tuned to 'anvil' (as Horace H coined) deuterium.

Actually I reused the term, I didn't really coin it.  I picked it up
looking through the sci.physic.fusion archives.  I think there it was used
in a different connotation, though, i.e. the use of oscillating pressure of
an "atomic anvil", the hot metal lattice, to decrease the average distance
between adsorbed H nucleii and thus increase the possibility of tunneling.
Even if the pressure anvil fusion hypothesis  were feasible, the fusion of
that nature should be conventional in nature, thus the branching ratios
should be conventional, and we are left with no explanation for the lack of
sufficient high energy byproducts and sufficient nuclear ash.  In my
connnotation the anvil is involved in increasing the interatomic distance
in hydrogen molecules caught in the anvil, and decreasing adjacent volumes
with the help of the Casimir effect, thereby breaking the molecular bond,
and in the process borrowing energy from the ZPE sea in a repeatable cycle.
It might have been more aptly named a three bladed molecular guillotine,
but anvil works nicely for brevity.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 13:02:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14373;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:01:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:01:13 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:59:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Swartz forgets that flow calorimeters have coolers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"58-dG2.0.VW3.Pk7Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24933
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitch Swartz has forgotten that all flow calorimeter must have coolers. He
writes:

	Now suppose the input water IS added at 16.7 ml/sec. (and
	which explains why a serious flowmeter was a sine qua non
	requirement).

Agreed. That is why Cravens and we always use a serious flowmeter, except
in this one instance. The flowmeters usually confirm Galileo's method. When
there is a discrepancy we always find the flowmeter is malfunctioning.


	With the purported flow rate 16.7 ml/sec -- and we can
	agree 10cc which hit boiling by Rick's correct
	calculation above in 2 seconds is NOT going to absorb
	much more energy except to the degree that it is
	replenished . . .

Rick's calculation was incorrect. He assumed the cell was producing only
1000 ~ 1200 watts and some heat was not collected by the water. In fact, it
was producing considerably more. Much heat was lost from the walls of the
cell which were palpably warm. (This fact alone proves it must have had
more than 1.5 watts input.) If the flow rate had been ~250 ml/min the water
would have boiled as it passed through the cell.


	In any case, we consider the maximum case since 2000
	liters was not reported to replenished every 12 minutes
	(see below).

Below is a discussion of heat losses, which is incorrect. The cell only
produced 1200 watts for a short period and the reservoir rapidly heated
during that time. It would definitely have reached boiling if Cravens had
not turned the heat down. However, it would have taken longer than 12
minutes because there was extensive air-cooling.


	At 16.7 ml/sec there are maximally taken by that flow
	from the cell 134 to 267 calories per second.  This is
	based upon which delta-T was taken, ie. either 8 or 16
	degrees.

	  Now, each second there are 1300 watts, or a further
	injection of circa 310 calories per second.  The putative
	1 Liter per minute is 17 or so ml/sec which removes 134
	to 267 calories for the two delta-T mentions (ie. 8 and
	16 degrees).  

	There is thus an unaccounted for MAJOR heat production
	up to 177 calories per second that must be dumped
	somewhere.

It wasn't unaccounted for! This was described in the report: "Flow was
measured by turning stopcocks to redirect fluid from the cell outlet tube
into a graduated cylinder for 15 seconds. This test was performed many
times, and the flow rate was not observed to change measurably, except when
it was deliberately adjusted between runs. The water hose from the pump is
coiled in an air cooled box on top of the reservoir. Air is drawn through
the box by the cooling fan."


	But this was called a FLOW CALORIMETER and the heat is
	supposed to be dumped in the flow.  

But of course it must also be *removed* from the flow! All flow
calorimeters must be equipped with coolers, to maintain a steady reservoir
and input temperature. With most, you use a laboratory cooler with a
built-in refrigerator as the reservoir. Cravens usually uses one, but it is
too bulky and fragile to carry on an airplane, so he built the air-cooler.


	Now what could be the possible effect of the unaccounted
	for 43 to 177 calories??

It wasn't unaccounted for! It was readily observable, as I said in the
original report.


	In fact, if there were 1300 watts, there would be SO
	much energy  unaccounted for in short order that the two
	liters would have hit boiling temperatures off in about
	12 minutes (50 minutes maximum)  by extending Rick's
	rather  nice calculation.  

But of course it would boil without a cooler! That is true of all flow
calorimeters. As I said, they must all be equipped with external coolers,
usually built-in to the reservoir.

This is common knowledge and it is discussed in detail in the report. It
seems that Swartz had not read the report carefully, and he has little
experience with flow calorimeters, since he has forgotten they require
coolers.


	Well, with a unaccounted-for power dissipation required
	of 189 to 741 watts, Jed's vertical flow calorimeter
	-- which is purported to be a flow system -- would have
	a putative new heat loss (outside of the flow route)  of
	11.2 to 93 watts/degree C.

Yes, and that is what I described in my report.


	 WOW.  That is quite a lossy system.

Yes, they all are. The cell is usually well insulated, but the reservoir is
designed to shed heat quickly.


	Hence the urging for the need for a joule control.

But of course there *were* joule controls! It says right in the report:
"The control cell was replaced with a joule heater for the remainder of the
conference, which raised the water temperature the normal, expected
amount." Extensive calibrations are always performed for weeks, in all
these experiments. We agree with Swartz 100% on this, and we have always
done these controls and calibrations as I have said here a dozen times. I
do not understand why he keeps demanding that we do something we have
already done. Swartz is a man who will not take yes for an answer!


Regarding the heat exchanger, in another message Swartz write:

	If you count it TWICE, that would be incorrect as it
	would be "double entry" for heat loss.

Well . . . yes, but who would do that?!? That's crazy! That would be like
measuring the power consumed by the refrigerator in a cooler, and
arbitrarily adding that in to the excess.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 13:09:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17056;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:08:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:08:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 16:10:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz forgets that flow calorimeters have coolers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"UAx4Z.0.MA4.Dr7Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24934
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 03:59 PM 11/22/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitch Swartz has forgotten that all flow calorimeter must have coolers. He
>writes:
>
>	Now suppose the input water IS added at 16.7 ml/sec. (and
>	which explains why a serious flowmeter was a sine qua non
>	requirement).
>
>Agreed. That is why Cravens and we always use a serious flowmeter, except
>in this one instance. 


  No.  Jed's comment is a "stab in the dark" - and is not true.
The cooling was assumed to be present and was counted --
otherwise there would NOT have been a delta-T.   

  It is improper accounting to add thermal losses in twice.


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


>This is common knowledge and it is discussed in detail in the report. It
>seems that Swartz had not read the report carefully, and he has little
>experience with flow calorimeters, since he has forgotten they require
>coolers.

  No.  Incorrect.   See above.


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


>	If you count it TWICE, that would be incorrect as it
>	would be "double entry" for heat loss.
>
>Well . . . yes, but who would do that?!? That's crazy! 


    See above since it should not be done.
By counting the delta-T, the cooling in the loop was implied.

      Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 14:06:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04754;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:05:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:05:37 -0800
Message-ID: <36588AC2.1499 earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:05:54 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact  11.22.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hnbqs.0.CA1.mg8Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24935
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
11.21.98
      Time:  Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:45:50 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
> 11.20.98
>       Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:10:00 +0000
>       From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>         To: rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Rich Murray wrote:
> 
> > Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
> > 11.19.98
> >       Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:06:26 +0000
> >       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> >         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> >
> > Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms
> >
> 
> [Comments by Rich Murray:  Thanks, Ed!  I visualize the burning zone at
> the bottom of an 100% O2 micro-bubble attached to a 50% H2 loaded metal
> impurity area on the Au surface.  The H2 is absorbed, not present as a
> hydride.  Somehow, some of the O2 molecules react with the surface H2,
> forming H2O vapor and releasing heat right there in the midst of the
> metal, since that's where the H2 is.  So immediately the surface of the
> metal is heated, its H2 is freed to expand and react with more O2, and
> the process accelerates, freeing more and more H2, depositing more and
> more heat right there on the disrupted and softening metal, increasing
> the area available for reaction, increasing the local temperature,
> expanding the absorbed H2, until a turbulent burning layer of foamy
> molted metal is well established.  I suppose this happens so rapidly
> that there is no time for the O2 bubble as a whole to expand
> significantly, or for significant heat to escape the burning layer.  The
> outcome might variously be:
> 1. The whole O2 bubble is consumed, leaving an attached bubble of H2O
> which cools or separates, leaving the metal foam to be quenched into a
> porous solid.
> 2. The O2-H2O bubble is blown off after partial combustion.
> 3. Various chemical impurities lead to solid combustion products that
> meld with the molten foam, or dissolve into the electrolyte.
> 4. An actual micro-explosion blows away the entire spot, leaving a
> micro-crater.
> 5. All of the above, and more.  Are the micro-volcanos imaged by Mizuno,
> Ohmori, and Enyo as uniform as their published photographs indicate?
> 
> Obviously, I am not competent to work out the details of all these
> scenarios.  The point is to set up a trailhead, where others may see
> possibilities for interesting treks.  I have shown that there is a
> remarkable chemical energy density available, when a 100% O2
> micro-bubble is in contact with a 50% H2 loaded metal micro-spot, well
> enough to melt the metal volume that contains the H2, so that any spark,
> however small, will tend to ignite the whole surface in contact with the
> O2 bubble.  Another possible source of ignition of a micro-bubble are
> the natural background of cosmic rays and impurities like K-40.  Ed
> mentioned the presence of K in the electrolyte.  I am very interested in
> his suggestions that plasma microsparks can occur, and that impurities
> in the Au can migrate to the surface during heating.  It could be that
> the actual number of O2 microbubbles is much greater than the number
> that happen to ignite.  Would stray UV light photons suffice to cause
> ignition?
> 
> Observation of the active surface via optical microscope or fast
> photomultiplier tubes, and also monitoring for acoustic signals would
> make it easy to make permanent recordings and establish the time and
> space density of bursts, their distribution of durations, their energy
> range, and the spectrum of released radiation.  Perhaps the electrolyte
> could be a very thin film on top of a horizontal Au film, so that only a
> little of the emitted radiations are absorbed in the electrolyte, and
> imaging of the whole surface would be easy.  Au can be deposited on a
> cheap charge coupled device image array, used in digigal cameras, which
> would allow another way to directly record the bursts.

Rich, the model you propose is simply impossible, as I have explained
previously. I say this not to defend the nuclear explanation, but to
keep the discussion in the realm of good science, a condition skeptics
keep demanding. It does no good to provide an explanation which is
clearly impossible to avoid one you happen to believe is impossible. 
The difference between the two explanations is that the mechanisms
involved in your model are well understood and are very basic to
physics. On the other hand, the explanation you are trying to reject has
some possibility of being correct, Dick Blue not withstanding. Prosaic
explanations must at least be consistent with reality as science
understands it.  I suggest you  either abandon this idea or demonstrate
with the proper calculations why I�m wrong. Good luck.

Ed Storms

[Comments by Rich Murray]  Well, time for contributions from the peanut
gallery!  Anyone else have any opinions or additions to this dialogue? I
have to confess, so far, I don't see any fundemental faults in my
scenario for H2 and O2 reaction heating the various impurity metals on
the Au, resulting in frozen foam micro-structures.  In particular, for
50% H loading in the metals, the available energy density from rapid
combustion with an 100% O2 micro-bubble is sufficient to melt the same
metal volume.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 14:42:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20196;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:41:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:41:35 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981122224839.00f01784 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: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 17:48:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated 
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"0yBlN2.0.Ux4.VC9Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24936
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 11:28 AM 11/22/98 -0900, you wrote:
>we are left with no explanation for the lack of
>sufficient high energy byproducts and sufficient nuclear ash.

What are these high energy byproducts and nuclear ash?

>In my
>connnotation the anvil is involved in increasing the interatomic distance
>in hydrogen molecules caught in the anvil, and decreasing adjacent volumes
>with the help of the Casimir effect, thereby breaking the molecular bond,
>and in the process borrowing energy from the ZPE sea in a repeatable cycle.

I wonder when hydrogen, excuses me, the deuterium molecule dissociates? Is
the electrolytic voltage high enough to create the atomic state? Does
dissociation occur when the molecule binds against the lattice at some point
while loading? Is the loading time consistant with building enough pressure
to cause dissociation? Or does it load to several thousand atmospheres and
more time is required for excess energy to be produced?

>It might have been more aptly named a three bladed molecular guillotine,

I also wonder if the powers that be were to continue on their own accord,
would such a conservative technological path be able to adjust appropriately
to prevent what some would foresee as upcoming catastrophic events. Should
we just sit back and relax because everything is under control and
everything will be OK? 

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 15:37:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05592;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981122233236.017dfca8 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: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:32:36 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: peanut gallery
Resent-Message-ID: <"hpsl9.0.FN1.Iw9Ms" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24937
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The thing about gold is that it must be taken down to a single atom to be
monatomic. Other transition elements have a minimum cluster size, below
which, the cluster will break apart to monatomic state of it's own accord.
Since the phenomena occurs at grain boundary dislocations, there may be
enough room for gas molecules to get a foothold and dislodge Au atoms. If
magnetic oversaturation and superconduting field collapse transmutates the
Au atom (not to mention recombination), further disruption of the Au lattice
may occur. But since Au does not have a critical cluster size (it must be
taken down to an atom for monatomic state), the lattice probably readjust
itself to the volcano shape. In my opinion...


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 15:53:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25882;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:49:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:49:23 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:46:31 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz forgets that flow calorimeters have coolers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XLfnt3.0.HK6.3CAMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24938
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitch Swartz writes:

	 No.  Jed's comment is a "stab in the dark" - and is not true. The
	cooling was assumed to be present and was counted -- otherwise there
	would NOT have been a delta-T.

	It is improper accounting to add thermal losses in twice.

But this is CRAZY!!! I did not count it! I compared the cell inlet to the
cell outlet. I collected the fluid in the cup from the outlet stream before
it reached the cooler.

How could I possibly "count" the cooling anyway?!? What does that mean?
Heat is positive, cooling is negative. If I had added the two together
there would be no heat. That is, if I had collected downstream from the
cooler, and compared it to the reservoir, there would be no Delta T. The
heating and cooling must balance and add up to zero or the reservoir
temperature will climb indefinitely, which is impossible. (It stabilized at
35 deg C, as stated in the report, when heating and heat losses balanced.)

This is simply not debatable. Swartz's statements are totally without
evidence. I repeat, the report says: "Flow was measured by turning
stopcocks to redirect fluid from the cell outlet tube into a graduated
cylinder for 15 seconds." The photographs clearly show the position of the
stopcocks just below the cell, and well above the cooler. Where else would
anyone measure the outlet temperature?!? If the fluid travels much farther
it begins to cool down measurably. (Cravens and I tested the flow below the
cooler when he set up in the Conference hall, but that was to confirm the
flow rate and be sure the cooler did not introduce measurable impedance.)


	See above since it should not be done. By counting the delta-T, the
	cooling in the loop was implied.

The Delta T including the cooling loop would be zero, obviously. What else
could it be? This claim is irrational. It is similar to the earlier weird
statement that I mixed together two unrelated 250 ml fluid samples,
presumably from the reservoir and the outlet hose. Obviously nobody would
do that. Swartz has no reason to think I would do it, yet he repeated this
many times. The report makes it clear what I did. The report and
photographs prove that his latest statements are mind-boggling nonsense.

Frankly, I think these statements by Swartz are disruptive and deliberately
intended to confuse the issue. He is abusing this forum, and perverting it
with wild claims. Sometimes people misunderstand things - I have no problem
with that. I do not mind explaining and re-explaining subtle points. But
nobody should declare categorically:

		The cooling was assumed to be present and was counted

When I made it clear that:

1. It was NOT counted.

2. It COULD NOT be counted (I had no thermocouples at the inlet to the
cooling loop - I have no idea how much the fluid cooled before it reached
that point.)

3. This concept makes no sense because when you count heating plus cooling
you get zero.

4. I have made it abundantly clear that I counted only cell inlet and
outlet temperatures, in description after description, which nobody could
possibly misunderstand or misinterpret. Nobody other than Swartz *has*
misunderstood.

I think this goes beyond a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation. I think
Swartz is deliberately causing trouble here by posting falsehoods and by
trying to trick people into thinking I made some kind of idiotic mistake -
an impossible mistake in this case. He is twisting my words, ignoring what
I write, telling me again and again that I should have used joule controls
when the report states I *did*, and now he seems to be saying that I added
hot plus cool to equal hotter still. I think this is deplorable nonsense,
and it is nonsense at my expense.

Colin Quinney says this discussion has "turned into a flame-war." Perhaps
it has, although no personal attacks have been made and our language
remains reasonable civil. I think Quinney's point is that a traditional
Internet flame war is not the only way to ruin a forum. I think Swartz's
statements constitute deliberate, calculated disruption and distortion, and
I find it personally insulting and outrageous. In off-line messages, people
have expressed sympathy and support, but they say that they will not post
messages here because Swartz will intimidate them with endless repetitions
of distortions and absurd accusations. Swartz is poisoning the atmosphere.
Frankly, I think he should apologize or he should be locked out for a week.
I will not post messages here if every statement I make is challenged with
a barrage of contradictory, hocus-pocus *meaningless* handwaving. This is
as bad as sci.physics.fusion.

Let me make something clear to Mr. Quinny: I posted the first message in
this thread, "...flow calorimeters have coolers" in good faith. This was
NOT an attempt to start a flame war. Many readers have not worked with flow
calorimeters, and they may not realize that flow calorimeters always come
equipped with coolers. They might think that there was something unique
about the Power Gen configuration. I posted the message in a sincere
attempt to clear up confusion and help people understand the calorimeter.
When Swartz repeated his bizarre statement about "counting the cooler" he
turned my sincere attempt to clarify the situation into a flame war.

The readers here must choose what kind of forum we will have here. I think
we should not allow people to endlessly repeat accusations that make a
mockery of science and common sense, such as: "you mixed two samples," "the
cooling was assumed to be present and was counted," "you did not use joule
controls" [when we state we did] and on and on. Some people might defend
this as free speech. Others may condemn me and Swartz equally, but I find
this is unfair because these absurd statements pertain to *my published
papers and my reputation*. This is not an attack on Swartz's work. We have
never discussed his papers about Bernard instability, and I never will
discuss them because I have no idea what they mean. This is an attack on
*my* work, and I shall defend it until the badgering attacks cease, or
until I get sick of the whole business and unsubscribe for a month.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 17:43:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29808;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 17:41:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 17:41:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:43:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YewPQ2.0.gH7.TrBMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24939
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 06:46 PM 11/22/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitch Swartz writes:
>
>	 No.  Jed's comment is a "stab in the dark" - and is not true. The
>	cooling was assumed to be present and was counted -- otherwise there
>	would NOT have been a delta-T.
>
>	It is improper accounting to add thermal losses in twice.
>
>But this is CRAZY!!! I did not count it! 



  It was counted in the my calculations because the delta-T reported
was used.   It was counted.

  End of story.  The heat transfer was accounted for by the
heat loss taken into the water (and thereafter assumed to be
lost enabling the cooler input temperature)

  Jed should stop the ad hominems and try to sit down with a pencil
and paper.  If he wants to continue his flame-wars - which HE began -
instead of dealing with the numbers, then he should go to spf or vortex-b.

   Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 18:15:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA04006;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:09:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:09:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122211130.00827d50 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:11:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Swartz forgets that flow calorimeters have coolers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"l9ox43.0.W-.SFCMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24940
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 06:46 PM 11/22/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell cries "Havoc":

> But nobody should declare categorically:
>
> The cooling was assumed to be present and was counted
>
>When I made it clear that:
>1. It was NOT counted.

   It would be nice if this could be focused on the science,
rather than another of Jed's subject titles that is wrong.
The fact is that water flow-cooling in the vertical flow
model WAS counted.  It was my analysis of the the purported
"1300 watts" experiment (previously posted and will not be
repeated to save bandwidth), and it was counted. 
 

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

>I think this goes beyond a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation. I think
>Swartz is deliberately causing trouble here by posting falsehoods and by
>trying to trick people into thinking I made some kind of idiotic mistake -
>an impossible mistake in this case. .... Swartz is poisoning the atmosphere.
>Frankly, I think he should apologize or he should be locked out for a week.

   Nonsense.  This is simple analysis; and the development
of systematized knowledge, using hypotheses and experiments is the
CORRECT thing to do - it is called science.

[Jed Rothwell has had no problem insulting numerous experimentalists
from Martin Fleischmann through several vorts whom I dont know through
Russ George and others whom I do know.  Jed's comments and disparagements
have NOT been based upon science as much as HIS interpretation and judgment.
It would seem without reciprocity that when a scientific analysis is made
of HIS experiment - he gets ballistic and demands it not be discussed.]

 
   To Jed it is suggested that he respond to the analysis quantitatively, 
rather than attacking the messenger with his endless flame war
- to the degree he elects to do so. 

 Fact is, IF there WAS a 1300 watt source for hours, than its heat and
mass transfer behavior should survive a "rough-and-ready" calculation.
If the calculation is wrong, then it can be demonstrated accordingly.

  IMO nickel water systems can demonstrate very low to low
level excess heats, and they should be measured with calorimetric 
systems which give the most accurate measurements.

     Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 19:39:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03612;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:38:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:38:05 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 17:34:35 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id TAA03593
Resent-Message-ID: <"nXQBw3.0.Mu.TYDMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24941
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  It was counted in the my calculations because the
   >  delta-T reported was used.   It was counted.

It sure seemed to me you were not counting it. The Delta T across the cell
alone could be relatively constant across a range of input and output
temperatures. That is, Delta T across the cell alone is essentially
independent of net temperature gain or loss in the whole electrolyte volume
(Whole-system Delta T). You were talking about extending my calculation to
that whole volume, which was originally for how long it takes to boil 10cc
of standing water at 35�C with 1000 watts and no losses. You came to 12
minutes for your 'extension', which is about how long it would take to boil
the whole 2.5 liters in the entire system, again *without losses*, which
means a lack of any significant heat removal from the entire system. That
means the heat exchanger was being ignored at that point, not included as
you stated.

It appears you were making the 12 minute case to show that there could not
have really been 1000 watts since the thing ran for far more than 12
minutes. In one sense you were right: the 35�C steady temperature on the
input side actually occured during a steady 500 watt episode, not 1000
watts as I had mistakenly stated. Jed's report didn't say how fast the
reservoir/input temperature rose during the 1000-1300 watt burst, but in
effect he says he thinks it would have quickly outpaced the cooler's
ability to throw away heat. He's probably right, although don't heat
exchangers gain efficiency as the temperature differential between the heat
in the lines and the ambient temperature gets larger? My guess is that the
cell would start issuing boiling electrolyte anyway when the input
temperature reached 76�C with a 1000cc/min flow rate during a 1000 watt
epsiode, not counting any dependency the cell's power level might have on
elevated electrolyte temperature.

I see the entire electrolyte flow system as a circle with two halves: the
positive Delta T is in the half between the cell input and output, and
includes the cell. The negative Delta T is the other half between the
output and the input, and includes the heat exchanger. Other losses from a
lack of any insulation can be thought of as distributed around both halves.
Ideally there would be equilibrium between these halves, where the net
temperature stayed the same (Whole-system Delta T = 0). This happened at
500 watts and 35�C electrolyte. Not to say cell Delta T during a net
heating or cooling of the entire system would be invalid, but in
equilibrium the math is much simpler, non-linear dependencies are not in
play, and with fewer complications the effect is even more glaringly
obvious.

By the way, I find that the flow rate would have had to be reduced to about
220cc/min while absorbing 1000 watts for the 10cc cell to output boiling
water from a steady 35�C input. That's less than one fourth of the flow
rate as Jed and others repeatedly measured it.

Calibration good, measurement good, 1000 watts excellent!

CETI ... apparently bad. Where *MY* water heater?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 19:42:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05019;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:41:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:41:38 -0800
Message-ID: <002d01be1692$d608f4a0$514accd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:36:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"hbupI1.0.BE1.nbDMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24942
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex & Dennis Lee:

The confusion generated by this abstract of a new A&Z report can be lessened
by reading my review of the A&Z work in a recent issue of IE. It was
discussed at length on Vortex in a debate with Rich Murray a while back.
What A&Z did was to hook two of their cells in series, both having the 'DS'
cathodes (palladium cylinders, with cavities which were first evacuated and
then packed with colloidal palladium, particles of tens of nanometer size,
also known as palladium black). In one cell the electrolyte was D2O, the
other case H2O. When all the calibrations were subtracted out, the cell with
the D2O showed a steadily increasing excess energy yield over a run of 2100
hours, while the cell with H2O showed none. My remarks here are based on the
actual paper, which was kindly forwarded to me in .pdf format by Akiri
Kawasaki.

The flow of experimental results with solid palladium cathodes have been
plagued by a high percentage of cathodes which don't work. Ed Storms has
developed screening protocols which can increase the chances of finding a
good cathode, but this does not define how to make one.

Evidence suggests that the CF effect is a surface phenomenon, not a bulk
effect, and requires 'active sites' of unknown properties. The approach
taken by A&Z and Case has been to use palladium in a form where it has an
enormous, irregular surface where there are myriad opportunities for the
'active sites' to appear.

In the A&Z instance, the particles are some 40 nanometers across, only a few
hundred atoms, so they might appropriately be called 'atom clusters'. D+
ions diffuse through the shell, and migrate over surfaces of the touching
particles in what is called a 'spillover' effect. High effective pressures
are generated. With H+ ions, some chemical reactions can be expected, but
the excess heat buildup that is seen with D+ ions does not occur. In other
experiments, A&Z demonstrated that He4 was produced in the palladium
nanoparticles.

Case has used a commercial catalyst with a fibrous, carbonaceous base on
which a film of Pd has been dispersed. With the right operating conditions,
excess heat and substantial helium are produced. Ed Wall at NERL is
currently working with a Case cell to duplicate the effect. McKubre at SRI
is undertaking a very well controlled test of the helium evolution from the
Case catalyst.

Another assault on the 'active site' problem is the sonofusion cell, which
uses cavitation to drive D2 into a target with intense local force due to
bubble collapse. Results reported on Russ George's web page suggest this may
be a viable technology.
----------------
<snip>

>>
>>Both D2O-cell and H2O-cell are constructed with the same Double Structure
>>Cathode (DS-cathode), and connected in series as a ``Double-cell'' to
>examine >the energy generation under the same electrolytic current.
D2O-cell
>generates >tremendously excess energy during a long period such as over
>several thousand >hours, but any energy is never generated in H2O-cell when
>the chemical energy >is subtracted in both cells.
>
>What chemical energy are they referring to?

>From the previous papers, I think they are referring to the energy generated
by the electrolysis process itself with a blank cathode. It is a calibration
run of the whole calorimetry system, which is described in earlier papers
and my review in IE.

>What is 'any energy'?

Bad English. What is meant, and supported by graphs in the paper, is that no
'excess energy' is produced in the cell with the H2O electrolyte.

>Is the hydrogen going into atomic state?

Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions, H+
and D+, and are monatomic.

>Are there special ways of precipitating
>palladium black to create lattice variation?

Colloidal metals are commonly produced by precipitation out of solution,
although one company does it by exploding wires with charged capacitors.
When the particles are only 40 nanometers across, as in some of the A&Z
experiments, there are only a few hundred atoms in any direction, so one
might well assume lots of lattice damage and lattice variation and 'active
sites'....whatever they may be.

> I don't think hydrogen is going
>into atomic state. The palladium black lattice is probably dimensionally
>tuned to 'anvil' (as Horace H coined) deuterium.


I don't think our technology in this area is at a point where we can "tune"
anything. Smash it together (as in sonofusion) and hope for the best is
about all we can do at present.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 19:50:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08729;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:49:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:49:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:51:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"heTes2.0.J82.piDMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24943
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 05:34 PM 11/22/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Mitchell -
>   >  It was counted in the my calculations because the
>   >  delta-T reported was used.   It was counted.
>
>It sure seemed to me you were not counting it.

  BTW, I think your other calculations of the time to boiling
for the 10cc were correct (except that it would
occur a tad quicker because it was a purported 1.3 kWatt
excess).

  Regarding this: when you model a flow system removing heat, there
is necessarily a delta-T (cooler input being heated
up, and thereafter removing heat).  If there was
no cooler then there would not be that delta-T.
Its presence is thus reflected in the delta-T itself, 
or the input would MATCH the output and the delta-T would
disappear as the entire flow circuit would heat up.

  As important corrolary question is: why does static calorimetry
or horizontal flow calorimetry gives a smaller excess heat
signal that a "kilowatt" measured in a vertical system
using the SAME device according to some.

  Have a good day.
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 20:31:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA19915;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:28:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:28:35 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
References: <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:25:08 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
Resent-Message-ID: <"9IZ85.0.1t4.oHEMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24944
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   >  Its presence is thus reflected in the delta-T itself, or
   >  the input would MATCH the output and the delta-T would
   >  disappear as the entire flow circuit would heat up.

It would, for a while at least, be just fine if the output temperature was
equal to the input - barring nonlinear cell behavior as I mentioned
previously. That technically leaves no room at all for thermal mass between
output and input though, so as a practical matter it's not really possible
(except for a brief instant at startup). As a practical matter there
would/should be a total flow mass much larger than the volume of the cell.
You could insulate the whole thing if you want and eliminate the exchanger,
and measure the rise of the input (reservoir) temperature over some
interval and flow rate. The entire flow circuit could then heat up and
still the cell's Delta T function could just ride on that rise until some
important phase change - like boiling - was reached and things really did
break down. In my opinion using a very large thermal mass in a system fully
enclosed in an insulated chamber would also be quite convincing. Seeing a
little cell heat up a large mass would be just as hard if not harder to
dispute than the open flow calorimetry which was used at the demo.

But what's the point of all this? The main point, the factual existence of
the 500 to 1300 watt heat, has been clearly demonstrated and has withstood
any logical and reasonable attempts to wave it away. IMO an elaborate hoax
or conspiracy of lies by Jed and a number of other observers at the demo
are required at this point to break it. I give those options an extremely
remote chance very close to zero.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 20:58:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32730;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:56:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:56:17 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27e93a636bd [208.228.222.28]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:03:05 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated 	  within D2O-Cell
 and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"iHhlj2.0.K_7.nhEMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24945
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:48 PM 11/22/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>Hi;
>
>At 11:28 AM 11/22/98 -0900, you wrote:
>>we are left with no explanation for the lack of
>>sufficient high energy byproducts and sufficient nuclear ash.
>
>What are these high energy byproducts and nuclear ash?


The fusion energy ends up somewhere, in gammas, betas, alphas.  The fusion
"ash" could be He4, He3, or H3, depending on the reaction involved.  There
are more products if reaction with the metal nucleii are considered
feasible.  Some think the CF energy can be distributed over a large portion
of the metal lattice by coherence effects.


>
>>In my
>>connnotation the anvil is involved in increasing the interatomic distance
>>in hydrogen molecules caught in the anvil, and decreasing adjacent volumes
>>with the help of the Casimir effect, thereby breaking the molecular bond,
>>and in the process borrowing energy from the ZPE sea in a repeatable cycle.
>
>I wonder when hydrogen, excuses me, the deuterium molecule dissociates?

Do you actually mean water molecule?  BTW, deuterium is hydrogen, and so is
protium.  There have been reports of CF working with protium in nickle
cathodes.  This seems to me unlikely to be hydrogen fusion, if the effect
is real.

You should be aware that water spontaneously dissociates into H+ and OH-
and also continuously recombines.  The reaction in an ordinary glass of
water is usually in equilibrium but skewed way towards the combined form,
i.e. water, so the amount of ions in pure water is comparatively small
compared to electrolyte solutions.  The equilibrium is shifted by heat.
The presence of electrodes greatly shifts the equilibrium towards the
creation of ions.  H+ ions, which are not even monatomic, but rather free
nucleii, when and if created, do not exist very long in water, but instead
combine with water to form H3O+ or D3O+ ions. As Mitchell Swartz pointed
out: "Between the diatomic gas evolved and the hydrogen (or deuterons) in
water are atomic hydrogens on the surface of the electrode.  [Check Uhlig
and/or Bockris texts.]"  There is a thin layer at the cathode, called the
interface, through which the H+ migrates to reach the metal lattice.  This
migration is accomplished by the proton tunneling from a properly aligned
H3O+ ion through the interface to the electrode.  At that point the H+ can
form monatomic H which can combine with other atoms and evolve as gas or
become water once again, or be adsorbed into the lattice.


>Is
>the electrolytic voltage high enough to create the atomic state?

There is nothing very special about the "monatomic" state.  There is plenty
of monatomic material involved in electrolysis.  Noble gasses contain
monatomic atoms in their natural state.  Arcs contain a lot of monatomic
material.  Why are you so focused on this?  It is no big deal.


>Does
>dissociation occur when the molecule binds against the lattice at some point
>while loading? Is the loading time consistant with building enough pressure
>to cause dissociation? Or does it load to several thousand atmospheres and
>more time is required for excess energy to be produced?

Excess heat is only observed in electrolytic CF when the lattice is very full.

You really should read the archives.  Also check out Mitchell's and Jed's
web pages.  Also John Logajan's at
<http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan> These things are free.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 21:18:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09243;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:17:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:17:32 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123001855.00820100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:18:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ln6TY1.0.KG2.i_EMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24946
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 06:25 PM 11/22/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Mitchell -
>
>   >  Its presence is thus reflected in the delta-T itself, or
>   >  the input would MATCH the output and the delta-T would
>   >  disappear as the entire flow circuit would heat up.
>
>It would, for a while at least, be just fine if the output temperature was
>equal to the input - barring nonlinear cell behavior as I mentioned
>previously. 

   No, actually it would not.  If there was no delta-T, then the heat
is NOT being dumped.

  This analysis suggests a possibly reason why most have found nickel/H2O
systems capable of only generating much smaller amounts of heat, with 
only the vertical flow system giving an "apparent" larger heat.  

  That is why it is important.
 
  It is not a hoax, or a conspiracy, but reflects the problem of vertical
flow calorimetry, at relatively low flow rates when Bernard instability
is a contributing factor.

  Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 21:32:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA15813;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:31:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:31:14 -0800
Message-ID: <00cc01be16a2$57034e20$6fa9f0cf default>
From: "mrand access" <mrand@iols.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: FREENRG-L  John Hutchison is now online!?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:29:55 -0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"8y5i72.0._s3.YCFMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24947
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Hey, since when does John Hutchison (of 'Hutchison effect' fame) have a
>website?!   Guess I'm just otta the loop!   :)
>I've invited him to join or lurk on FREENRG-L.


Welcome aboard John and nice website!  Looking forward to hearing more of
your exciting research discoveries.

Regards,   Michael Randall

>Check it out:
>
>  http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html
>
>He notes that he will be restarting his research in the near future.
>
>((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Sun Nov 22 22:39:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA31771;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:35:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:35:32 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b27ea3f10ab1 [12.21.208.60]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:42:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hudson Seminar and CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"CXDvR2.0.Gm7.q8GMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24948
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:08 AM 11/22/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>Hi;
>
>At 04:30 PM 11/21/98 -0900, you wrote:
[snip]
>>I suppose a vacuum
>>is superconducting, in the sense that it has no resistance, but a vacuum
>>does not exhibit robustly the effects we associate with superconductivity,
>>like the Meissner effect.  Superconductivity in terms of one or a few atoms
>>has no meaning in the conventional senseto my knowledge.
>>
>
>Monatomics arrange themselves on a quantum wave.

Do they hold hands and ride surfboards?  8^)

[snip]
>>In looking through the above web page I see no credible theory, or
>>experiments demonstrating anything to substantiate the claims or even the
>>vocabulary being used.  It is another world.  The only thing giving the
>>page any credibility that I can can find are the pointers to various
>>university physics teaching resources - which are not at all germane,
>>especially to the decription which misleads you to believe you are being
>>referred to a "monatomic" experimental resources page, when all it is is an
>>undergraduate physics page.  This looks like a cheap ruse that would only
>>work on the most unsophisticated interested parties, i.e. potential
>>investors.
>
>You mean this page?
>
>http://monatomic.earth.com/database/research/


No, that URL seems to point to a page with a number of legitimate but only
weakly or peripherally related articles. There is no apparent rhyme or
reason for the references.

I was referring to the "Physics Demonstration" reference on the main page,
which sends you to <http://info.phys.uvic.ca/dbr/resman/demo_contents.html>
which might be better described as a introductory physics tutorial
material.


>>If there were some good conclusive experiments posted demonstrating free
>>energy or even superconductivity, as per the "monatomic" theory, one of the
>>crucial ingredients of the posed ideas, then this might be interesting.
>>
>>There does not seem to be any emphasis on independent replication or
>>disclosure, real warning signals for something that has been around a long
>>time yet is still being hyped.  Maybe I missed something?
>
>http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/hudson.txt


Thanks for the pointer to this page.

I do not see any information provided there sufficient for an independent
replication of anything anomalous.  It is all anecdotal discussion like you
would expect from someone looking for naive investors while holding their
cards close to the vest.

Also, though I am only a largely self educated amateur, I take the
following quote from the above page to be self explanatory evidence the guy
is fairly clueless about the nature of superconductivity and even the
difference between bosons and photons:

"What you have to do is you have to take a radio frequency transmitter and you
have to resonance frequency tune the superconductor to match the frequency of
the wire.  [More likely tune the wire to match the superconductor].  So the
wire now is oscillation with its electron waves exactly the same as the
superconductor.  At that point the electronic pair can go on the
superconductor with no push at all.  Because electrons are continually moving
over here on the wire and they are seeking the path of least resistance.  And
so when you have them in perfect synchronization with the superconductor they
go on with no push at all as pairs.

Now this takes a little explaining because one spin one half electron plus one
spin one half electron are two particles.  Yet when these two particles become
perfectly paired as mirror images of each other they lose all particle aspects
and they become nothing but pure light.  This doesn't make sense either, does
it?  But that's the way it is.  Spin one half plus spin one half gives you
spin one which now is pure light.  Trust me it is so.  So they can't go on as
individual electrons, they go on as light."


>
>
>>I somebody asked me for money on this basis I would run away, run away!
>
>Too late!

I hope not!  I think I'll kindly depart the topic, and leave it to those
with some interest in it to discuss it.  Maybe Joe will have an interest in
this when he gets out of the slammer.  Unfortunately, I hear Barry Merriman
is no longer with us, else he might have something to say on the subject.

However, if you know of any experiments we can readily replicate that show
an anomalous effect relating to the above, let's hear it!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 22 23:51:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA16723;
	Sun, 22 Nov 1998 23:48:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 23:48:03 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 02:43:55 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811230247_MC2-6131-658B compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"I3kOB.0.B54.pCHMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24949
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

>> It is not a hoax, or a conspiracy, but reflects the problem of vertical
flow calorimetry, at relatively low flow rates when Bernard instability
is a contributing factor. <<

I am in need of education please<gs>

You repeatedly indicate that the effect of Bernard instability (Bi) can be
felt in a remotely collected bulk sample however it has been mixed.

Am I correct in understanding that the Bi effect is caused by the
'super-heated' liquid stream in the vertical section effectively overtaking
the cooler mass of liquid and perpetuating the false high temp reading
WHEREVER it is sampled thereafter?   If so then Jed is wrong.  If not then
acres of screen have been wasted.

Please elucidate for an ageing Engineer<GS>

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 00:06:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA05845;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981123080403.00f02e6c 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, 23 Nov 1998 03:04:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hudson Seminar and CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xh9F83.0.FR1.EQHMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24950
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:42 PM 11/22/98 -0900, you wrote:
  
(snip)

>>Monatomics arrange themselves on a quantum wave.
>
>Do they hold hands and ride surfboards?  8^)

This one describes how monatomics arrange themselves on the quantum wave:


Direct Mapping of Adatom-Adatom Interactions 
[REF00007] 
Physical Review Letters 
Vol. 62 #10, March 6, 1989 
Fumiya Watanabe and Gert Ehrlich 
Coordinated Science Laboratory and Department of Materials Science 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801 
Reference: pp. 1146-1149 



[snip]



>No, that URL seems to point to a page with a number of legitimate but only
>weakly or peripherally related articles. There is no apparent rhyme or
>reason for the references.

This one is about spontaneous fission of monatomics:


Inertias of superdeformed bands 
[REF00008] 
Physical Review C 
Vol. 41 #4, April 1990 
Y. R. Shimizu, E. Vigezzi and R. A. Broglia 
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen 
DK-2100 Copenhagen +, Denmark 
Reference: pp. 1861-1864 

    Such deformation plays an important role in spontaneous fission, where
the 2:1
    configuration is connected with the second minimum of the fission
barrier, as well as in
    heavy ion collisions, leading to resonant molecular-like behavior. 


This one is about gamma ray emission from monatomics.



Spin Cycle 
    The Spectra of Super Deformed Nuclei 
    [REF00017] 
    Scientific American 
    October 1991 
    Philip Yam 
    Reference: p. 26 

        Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory have been finding
that rapidly
        spinning nuclei with different masses have similar--if not exactly the
        same--moments of inertia. 'Something is going on,' said Frank F.
Stephens, a
        physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley lab, 'and for reasons we don't
understand
        yet.'" "A spinning nucleus results from an off-center collision
between two nuclei
        that fuse to form a rapidly spinning, elongated body. "The deformed
nucleus can
        take the shape of an American football, a doorknob, or possibly even
a banana
        depending on the collision energy in the nuclei. In a typically
deformed nucleus the
        long axis exceeds the two short axis by about a factor of 1.3.
Nucleus whose long
        axis is about twice that of the short axis are called
superdeformed." That's what
        we discussed earlier, the 2 to 1 deformation. "It is in these
superdeformed nuclei
        that curious goings on have taken place. A spinning superdeformed
nucleus slows
        down in discrete steps, each time emitting gamma rays, or highly
energetic
        photons. The emissions produce a characteristic band of energy
spikes all spaced
        equally apart. The surprise: the spectra of some different
superdeformed nuclei
        were almost identical. 


This one is about monatomic palladium:



Superdeformation in 104, 105Pd 
    [REF00006] 
    Physical Review C 
    Vol. 38 #2, August 1988 
    A. O. Macchiavelli 
    J. Burde, R. M. Diamond, C. W. Beausang, M. A. Deleplanque, 
    R. J. McDonald, F. S. Stephens, and J. E. Draper 
    Nuclear Science Division 
    Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
    Berkeley, California 94720 
    Reference: pp. 1088-1091 

        Of special interest are those shapes known as 'superdeformed' (SD)
where the
        nucleus acquires a very elongated shape that can be approximately
represented by
        the ellipsoid where the ratio of the long to short axis is
considerably larger than that
        of normal deformation ~ 1.3:1. Within the framework of the anisotropic
        harmonic-oscillator model one can expect the existence of favorable
shell gaps that
        appear regularly as a function of deformation and nucleon number.
They are
        predicted to occur for particular 'super deformed, magic numbers',
and at
        deformations corresponding to integer ratios to the length of the
axes (e.g., . . .
        corresponds to a ratio of 2 to 1). 

(snip)

>I do not see any information provided there sufficient for an independent
>replication of anything anomalous.  It is all anecdotal discussion like you
>would expect from someone looking for naive investors while holding their
>cards close to the vest.

As I said before, it takes two or three months to get a handle on this subject.


>Also, though I am only a largely self educated amateur, I take the
>following quote from the above page to be self explanatory evidence the guy
>is fairly clueless about the nature of superconductivity and even the
>difference between bosons and photons:
>
>"What you have to do is you have to take a radio frequency transmitter and you
>have to resonance frequency tune the superconductor to match the frequency of
>the wire.  [More likely tune the wire to match the superconductor].  So the
>wire now is oscillation with its electron waves exactly the same as the
>superconductor.  At that point the electronic pair can go on the
>superconductor with no push at all.  Because electrons are continually moving
>over here on the wire and they are seeking the path of least resistance.  And
>so when you have them in perfect synchronization with the superconductor they
>go on with no push at all as pairs.
>
>Now this takes a little explaining because one spin one half electron plus one
>spin one half electron are two particles.  Yet when these two particles become
>perfectly paired as mirror images of each other they lose all particle aspects
>and they become nothing but pure light.  This doesn't make sense either, does
>it?  But that's the way it is.  Spin one half plus spin one half gives you
>spin one which now is pure light.  Trust me it is so.  So they can't go on as
>individual electrons, they go on as light."

True, this is a different kind of superconductivity. I've heard type 2 may
be it, but I'm not sure. 

(snip)

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 00:13:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA24624;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:12:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:12:54 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981123081942.00ef374c 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, 23 Nov 1998 03:19:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"VPDxo3.0.g06.5aHMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24951
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 10:36 PM 11/22/98 -0500, you wrote:

(snip)

>In the A&Z instance, the particles are some 40 nanometers across, only a few
>hundred atoms, so they might appropriately be called 'atom clusters'. D+
>ions diffuse through the shell, and migrate over surfaces of the touching
>particles in what is called a 'spillover' effect. 

So the palladium black is tightly packed in the shell?


>High effective pressures
>are generated. With H+ ions, some chemical reactions can be expected, but
>the excess heat buildup that is seen with D+ ions does not occur.

Hydrogen migrates in Pd faster than deuterium. Thus D is larger than H?
Where does the heat get generated, within the shell or on it's surface?

(snip)

>>Is the hydrogen going into atomic state?
>
>Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions, H+
>and D+, and are monatomic.

What about when it gets inside the shell at 1000s of atmospheres?


(snip)

>Colloidal metals are commonly produced by precipitation out of solution,
>although one company does it by exploding wires with charged capacitors.
>When the particles are only 40 nanometers across, as in some of the A&Z
>experiments, there are only a few hundred atoms in any direction, so one
>might well assume lots of lattice damage and lattice variation and 'active
>sites'....whatever they may be.

Why is it black?


>> I don't think hydrogen is going
>>into atomic state. The palladium black lattice is probably dimensionally
>>tuned to 'anvil' (as Horace H coined) deuterium.
>
>
>I don't think our technology in this area is at a point where we can "tune"
>anything. Smash it together (as in sonofusion) and hope for the best is
>about all we can do at present.

EM fields? I just read something about 82 MHz enhancing CF.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 00:31:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA02897;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:30:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:30:52 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981123083748.00ef5eb4 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, 23 Nov 1998 03:37:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated  
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"xrXue2.0.7j.xqHMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24952
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 08:03 PM 11/22/98 -0900, you wrote:

(snip)


>You should be aware that water spontaneously dissociates into H+ and OH-
>and also continuously recombines.  The reaction in an ordinary glass of
>water is usually in equilibrium but skewed way towards the combined form,
>i.e. water, so the amount of ions in pure water is comparatively small
>compared to electrolyte solutions.  The equilibrium is shifted by heat.
>The presence of electrodes greatly shifts the equilibrium towards the
>creation of ions.  H+ ions, which are not even monatomic, but rather free
>nucleii, when and if created, do not exist very long in water, but instead
>combine with water to form H3O+ or D3O+ ions. As Mitchell Swartz pointed
>out: "Between the diatomic gas evolved and the hydrogen (or deuterons) in
>water are atomic hydrogens on the surface of the electrode.  [Check Uhlig
>and/or Bockris texts.]" 

How is this atomic hydrogen layer explained? Does this layer form at the
start of electrolysis? Doesn't this mean that the hydrogen atom is what
loads into the Pd?

>There is a thin layer at the cathode, called the
>interface, through which the H+ migrates to reach the metal lattice.  This
>migration is accomplished by the proton tunneling from a properly aligned
>H3O+ ion through the interface to the electrode.  At that point the H+ can
>form monatomic H which can combine with other atoms and evolve as gas or
>become water once again, or be adsorbed into the lattice.
>
>
>>Is
>>the electrolytic voltage high enough to create the atomic state?
>
>There is nothing very special about the "monatomic" state.  There is plenty
>of monatomic material involved in electrolysis.  Noble gasses contain
>monatomic atoms in their natural state.  Arcs contain a lot of monatomic
>material.  Why are you so focused on this?  It is no big deal.

Hydrogen atom in the hydrogen molecule is smaller than the hydrogen in
atomic state. Does this difference in volume, times 10^93 grams/cm^3
represent the ZPE transfer in the dissociation - recombination cycle?

(snip)

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 00:35:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA05349;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:35:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:35:10 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123033706.008059d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 03:37:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Bernard Instability
In-Reply-To: <199811230247_MC2-6131-658B compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"SLq6d.0.VJ1.-uHMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24953
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 02:43 AM 11/23/98 -0500, Norman Horwood wrote:

>You repeatedly indicate that the effect of Bernard instability (Bi) can be
>felt in a remotely collected bulk sample however it has been mixed.

   It changes the heat transport by adding a term in addition
to the convective term.

    Sampling and thermometry have their own unique possible errors
that are independant, of course.  

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


>Am I correct in understanding that the Bi effect is caused by the
>'super-heated' liquid stream in the vertical section effectively overtaking
>the cooler mass of liquid and perpetuating the false high temp reading
>WHEREVER it is sampled thereafter?   

   Gravity acting upon density inversion yields mass transfer
which can be observed even in a cup of coffee.  That inversion
and mass transfer can add a term which is increasingly important
in vertical flow systems where the applied flow is relatively
low.  This effect can be avoided by horizontal flow obviously.

   Have a good day.

     Mitchell


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 02:25:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA31448;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 02:24:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 02:24:42 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b27ecfe616a0 [12.72.128.122]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981123001855.00820100 world.std.com>
References: <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:21:12 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
Resent-Message-ID: <"yuY0w2.0.Eh7.gVJMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24954
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mtchell -


[Rick]
   >  It would, for a while at least, be just fine if the output
   >  temperature was equal to the input - barring nonlinear
   >  cell behavior as I mentioned previously.


[Mitchell]
   >  No, actually it would not.  If there was no delta-T, then
   >  the heat is NOT being dumped.

When are the input and output temperatures the same? When the cell's not
working, or there's zero flow, or in the first instant of time on startup
which is essentially no flow. Or, you could preheat the input flow to match
the output - for what reason, I wouldn't know.

Instant Delta T, as opposed to absolute temperatures over time, can reflect
only what the cell is doing and not what goes on in the outer circuit. That
circuit may be lossy, or well insulated, or have a chiller on it. But add
heat to it, and any input TC would have to be moved upstream of the new
heat source or the cell energy would read too low. I think the main way to
get a sense for what's going on external to the cell is to watch the
temperatures comprising Delta T changing (or not changing in equilibrium).
The other way is to know the entire volume of circulating electrolyte and
wonder why, with such a large heat source, it isn't boiling in 12 minutes.

   >  This analysis suggests a possibly reason why most have
   >  found nickel/H2O systems capable of only generating
   >  much smaller amounts of heat, with only the vertical
   >  flow system giving an "apparent" larger heat.

Why? I still see no possible reason suggested. But that could just be me
(and a lot of other people here).

Look. CETI had 10cc black box. Water go in at 1000cc/min. Water come out at
1000cc/min 8 to 17 degrees hotter.

1000 watts good. Typing words hard. Ricky sleepy. Goodnight.  :)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 03:12:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA03866;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 03:06:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 03:06:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981123111337.00ee84cc 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, 23 Nov 1998 06:13:37 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: The Objective is to Find the Truth, NOT to Make Others Look Bad
Resent-Message-ID: <"H1QBd2.0.Iy.r6KMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24955
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

Couldn't we say:

"Well, I think it might be this for such and such reason."

Or even:

"Could it be that for this reason?"

Or:

"Why do you think it's this?"

I feel it's a little harsh to say:

"Well, so and so REALLY SCREWED UP THIS ONE"!!!!


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 04:08:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA12192;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 04:07:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 04:07:46 -0800
Message-ID: <008301be16d9$47eecfe0$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Dry Rotary Vane or Roller Pumps for O-U Friction Experiments
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 05:01:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"qOy__3.0.Q-2.I0LMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24956
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Off-the-shelf Rotary Vane or Roller Pumps can be purchased at prices ranging
from about $100.00 to $300.00. The Grainger catalog or the Thomas Register
are good sources.

These use a slotted rotor with "caged" vanes or rollers sliding inside an
offset cylinder.The variable speed drive motors that can get up to 10
horsepower are sold separately.

These pumps can be ran over-speed to get required friction heating effects
and can incorporate modified Vane or Roller materials
and possibly Teflon "O" Ring seals for higher operating temperatures.

Metal (or other)"vanes" can be substituted for the rollers and the
centrifugal force (determined by RPMs) can set the friction force.

They will also circulate the H2O or D2O at over 20 gallons/minute and 300
psi, making for easy integral calorimetry.

NEVER BUILD WHAT YOU CAN BUY,CHEAPER!  :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 05:46:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA00480;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 05:46:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 05:46:00 -0800
Message-ID: <003101be16e7$45196060$424accd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:41:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2nxSu3.0.P7.OSMMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24957
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Dennis Lee wrote:


>>In the A&Z instance, the particles are some 40 nanometers across, only a
few
>>hundred atoms, so they might appropriately be called 'atom clusters'. D+
>>ions diffuse through the shell, and migrate over surfaces of the touching
>>particles in what is called a 'spillover' effect.
>
>So the palladium black is tightly packed in the shell?


Yes, under vacuum, no air.

>>High effective pressures
>>are generated. With H+ ions, some chemical reactions can be expected, but
>>the excess heat buildup that is seen with D+ ions does not occur.
>
>Hydrogen migrates in Pd faster than deuterium. Thus D is larger than H?


The measured effective radii of the atoms may be the other way around, H
larger (anyone with the numbers please check me!). However, inside a Pd
lattice you are talking about D+ which should be larger than H+, since there
is a neutron---and I would expect the D+ ion to be heavier and thus move
more slowly in random-walk diffusion. I'm out of the wading pool in this
area and guessing :-).

>Where does the heat get generated, within the shell or on it's surface?


The first experiments were performed with one cell containing D2O, the other
H2O. They did perform an experiment with a mixture of D2O and H2O whose
results are a bit odd, but I have not studied it and won't comment on it. In
either case, the reported heat is measured by circulating water through a
coil inside the electrolyte bath and measuring outlet-inlet delta T and the
flow rate. Thus the heat comes from the whole capsule. However, evidence in
other experiments indicates that the heat is generated in the nanopowder in
the capsule. A&Z have shown photomicrographs which suggest partial fusing of
the particles -- jagged surfaces before heat-yielding runs, rounded surfaces
after.
>
>(snip)
>
>>>Is the hydrogen going into atomic state?
>>
>>Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions,
H+
>>and D+, and are monatomic.
>
>What about when it gets inside the shell at 1000s of atmospheres?


D+ and H+ ions arriving at the inner surface of the cavity have two choices.
To break free of the surface and become H2 or D2 gas, they must find another
ion and some spare electrons (plenty available). This requires work, so
there is a potential barrier to be overcome. The other choice is to migrate
over the inner surface of the cavity to a touching particle of Pd black, and
continue to migrate until it runs into another migrating ion or finds its
way into the Pd particles themselves through the many broken lattice faces,
thus loading the Pd body. This is the 'spillover' process. In other
experiments A&Z present measurements of the pressure inside their DS
cathodes which show that the buildup of internal pressure is delayed very
significantly as this spillover process occurs. When the surfaces become
saturated, then gas evolution begins and the electrolytic gradient in the
cell results in high internal pressures of D2 or H2 gas.
>
>(snip)
>
>>Colloidal metals are commonly produced by precipitation out of solution,
>>although one company does it by exploding wires with charged capacitors.
>>When the particles are only 40 nanometers across, as in some of the A&Z
>>experiments, there are only a few hundred atoms in any direction, so one
>>might well assume lots of lattice damage and lattice variation and 'active
>>sites'....whatever they may be.
>
>Why is it black?


I presume because the particles are so small that they no longer reflect
light. "XX black" is a common term for the colloidal form of any metal.

>>> I don't think hydrogen is going
>>>into atomic state. The palladium black lattice is probably dimensionally
>>>tuned to 'anvil' (as Horace H coined) deuterium.
>>
>>
>>I don't think our technology in this area is at a point where we can
"tune"
>>anything. Smash it together (as in sonofusion) and hope for the best is
>>about all we can do at present.
>
>EM fields? I just read something about 82 MHz enhancing CF.


Perhaps. My comment was only about the choice of words in the quote from
Horace, which doesn't seem relevant to the A&Z experiments.

Regards, Mike Carrell



>
>Regards;
>Dennis
>
>
>Tall Ships
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 06:49:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA23445;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:48:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:48:43 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123094953.0080b730 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:49:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
In-Reply-To: <l03130303b27ecfe616a0 [12.72.128.122]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981123001855.00820100 world.std.com>
 <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"BOajd.0.Bk5.BNNMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24958
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 12:21 AM 11/23/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>[Mitchell]
>   >  No, actually it would not.  If there was no delta-T, then
>   >  the heat is NOT being dumped.
>
>When are the input and output temperatures the same? 

   Please note that the above is a conditional statement ("If there..."), 
demonstrating the heat transfer by the cooler WAS considered in the model.

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

>Instant Delta T, as opposed to absolute temperatures over time, can reflect
>only what the cell is doing and not what goes on in the outer circuit. 

   Not true - with feedback in the steady state.

  Have a day.
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 06:57:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26699;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:56:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:56:41 -0800
Message-ID: <36597F7F.7B12 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:30:07 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Join and access Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (IN ENGLISH)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0JDyO3.0.5X6.fUNMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24959
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Noivember 23, 1998

Vortex,

One of the difficulties accessing information from Japan has been it's
language. 

The Japanese Physics Society has an on-line Journal of Applied Physics
in English (also Japanese) which alleviates the language barrier. 

It is easy to register to receive your ID and password within a few
minutes through e-mail. Tap into <http://www.jjap.or.jp/online/>, go
into 'REGISTRATION'. 

You will be able to access full texts (in PDF), just like the Arata
article noted by Hamdi Ucar. See what's going on over there. They are
onto the American scene here.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 08:51:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02521;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:49:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:49:13 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:49:05 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Misbehavior on vortex-L : an experiment
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981120082000.20352B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"_L5X_1.0.Bd.88PMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24960
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

billb eskimo.com wrote:

> See who indulges in verbal abuse, and you'll know who is creating this
> flamewar.  If there was no verbal abuse being slung, if the participants
> acted like civilized people and displayed respect for each other, then
> it would be a debate, not a flamewar.

I'd like to propose an experiment which MIGHT improve the current flamewar
situation on Vortex-L.

If you have a strong opinion about the recent behavior of particular
people on vortex, please communicate it to them now. PRIVATELY. 

Why? When I give warnings myself, I am invariably accused of bias, of
mistaking normal debate for "flaming," of trying to prevent people from
defending themselves, etc., etc.  My warnings are dismissed with all sorts
of excuses.  They might be OBEYED, but they are not taken seriously.  The
same problems come right back again and again. The perpetrators see
nothing wrong with their behavior.  I'm only one person, so even if I
throw people off the forum, they can still dismiss my views as being an
isolated and biased opinion.

I believe that any use of verbal abuse damages the credibility of those
who employ it.  I believe that "flaming", in the eyes of all collegues,
can irrepairably destroy the reputation of the flamer But the ones
involved in the flamewar very definitely do not believe this.  They see
themselves as fighting a righteous battle against a disgusting foe, and
they imagine that everyone else sees it this way too.  Let's convince them
otherwise.

Please contact whoever you wish, and tell them exactly what their recent
Vortex-L behavior looks like.  Be frank, even harsh, but try hard to be
RESPECTFUL.

If you wish to participate in my "experiment", do so PRIVATELY.  Send your
messages directly to the parties involved.  The goal here is not to
embarass anyone.  The goal isn't to gain a concensus and then to gang up
on anyone.  Instead, the goal is to give some community feedback to those
who need really need it.  And to be taken seriously, the feedback must
come from semi-disinterested individuals, not those who obviously have an
axe to grind.  Flamewars arise because of lack of feedback.  In a
realworld science conference, a "flamer" would immediately notice the
disgust on the faces of the listeners, and would quickly stop and
reconsider his recent words.

Give some thought before participating in this.  My experiment might be
beneficial, but it also might create new enemies.  Just remember that you
are not acting alone, and you're not motivated by spite.  "Bill Beaty
told me to do it, blame HIM!"      :) 

PS, don't use verbal abuse in your message!  A good technique is to gather
some specific brief quotes from earlier messages, then state your opinion
of the behavior they illustrate.  "WHEN YOU SAY XXXXX, I REACT WITH
FEELINGS OF YYYY, AND SEE YOU AS ZZZZZZ."  And even if your feelings
aren't those of respect, try to speak with respect anyway.  A respectful
tone will allow your message to be taken very seriously.

(Yes, in part this is a ploy to get vortex-L to police itself more than in
the past.  Yet I really do think that private messages from the bystanders
will be taken seriously, while public complaints or threats from the
moderator will cause nothing but defensive excuses, justification and
instant dismissal.  And besides, this is an interesting social experiment
with unknown long term results.) 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                             SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                             http://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 Nov 23 10:14:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04276;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:12:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:12:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123131005.00692648 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:10:05 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Making inlet = outlet temp
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PmIsH.0.k21.WMQMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24961
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde writes:

	When are the input and output temperatures the same? When the cell's
	not working, or there's zero flow, or in the first instant of time on
	startup which is essentially no flow. Or, you could preheat the input
	flow to match the output - for what reason, I wouldn't know.

Your last method would not work. You could preheat the input flow up to ~60
degrees Celsius, but if the cell has a source of heat in it, the outlet
must come out warmer than the inlet. Above ~60, depending upon the flow
rate and insulation, the cell may shed more heat then the Joule heater adds
as the water passes through. In other words, when the Joule heater is
turned on the water might go in at 60 and come out at 59. When it is off
the water might come out at 57 instead.

Above 90 degrees boiling will introduce complexity and flow calorimetry
will not work.

It would be difficult to match inlet and outlet temperatures when a cell
generates heat. You would have to match the heat loss *from the cell* to
the Joule heater. Heat losses from the rest of the loop are irrelevant. You
could automate the process. With McKubre's calorimeter, they do something
similar to this. They use an auxiliary heater to keep the Delta T
temperatures the same at all times. When there is excess heat, power to the
auxiliary heater is automatically reduced. The amount it is reduced equals
excess heat.

Interestingly enough, McKubre also uses Galileo's method of measuring the
flow rate, in addition to rotary flow meters. The rotary flow meters are
secondary, I believe. The flow of cooling water is automatically shifted to
a mass-balance scale for a fixed period of time. Quote: "Mass flow rates
were measured using a Setra model 5000L digital balance with accuracy of
better than 0.01% (200 +/- .01g / 240 +/- .01 seconds). This accuracy
reflects the determination of the mass delivered to the balance." (ICC2, p.
425. See diagram on p. 429.) The water normally goes through a flow
multiplexer to waste, and back to the reservoir. Periodically, the
multiplexer shifts it to the automated mass balance instead. The clock that
controls this shift is accurate to 0.01 seconds, whereas when I do it
manually I achieve about 0.5 second accuracy. Yet I still find this method
is more accurate than all but the best flow meters. Flow meters have
advantages though: they are continuous and they can record automatically.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 11:18:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA31572;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:16:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:16:41 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130305b27f5b65dd0c [12.72.128.122]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981123094953.0080b730 world.std.com>
References: <l03130303b27ecfe616a0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981123001855.00820100 world.std.com>
 <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:06:11 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments are incorrect about the heat loss
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA31451
Resent-Message-ID: <"N_UrJ3.0.Aj7.PIRMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24962
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

   <<  Instant Delta T, as opposed to absolute temperatures
   <<  over time, can reflect  only what the cell is doing and
   <<  not what goes on in the outer circuit.

          >   Not true - with feedback in the steady state.

If, within a certain operating range of absolute input temperature, a cell
adds 10�C to a given flow, then it will have a Delta T of 10�C no matter if
the external circuit keeps feeding it artificially cooled electrolyte or
not.

Examples for a Delta T of 10:

------------------------
Case#1: There's a chiller on the external circuit here, so cooled
electrolyte is being fed to the input.

Initially:

	Input temperature: 20�C
	Output temperature: 30�C
	Delta T = 10�C

...10 minutes later:

	Input temperature: 20�C
	Output temperature: 30�C
	Delta T = 10�C
------------------------
Case#2: Cell-warmed electrolyte is recirculating continuously through
insulated lines with no chiller in the circuit.

Initially:

	Input temperature: 50�C
	Output temperature: 60�C
	Delta T = 10�C

...10 minutes later:

	Input temperature: 80�C
	Output temperature: 90�C
	Delta T = 10�C

------------------------
In all cases and instances above the delta T is 10�C. 10 = 10 = 10. So how
can it be said that it reflects differing conditions in the external
circuit? It's 10 in each case, so how are we extracting any information
about it other than that the cell is raising the water by ten degrees
between its input and its output? We must look at the absolute temperature
over time, and/or know something about the volume of electrolyte in
combination with absolute temperature readings. Please, someone, tell me if
this is wrong and why.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 11:30:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03776;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:27:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:27:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123142839.008127d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:28:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Comments on heat loss, linearity, etc.
In-Reply-To: <l03130305b27f5b65dd0c [12.72.128.122]>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981123094953.0080b730 world.std.com>
 <l03130303b27ecfe616a0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981123001855.00820100 world.std.com>
 <l03130301b27e8cc04fd0 [12.72.128.122]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122225104.0081e640 world.std.com>
 <l03130300b27e730e4651 [12.72.128.217]>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122204347.007d9100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122184631.0068d058 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122161025.0082eeb0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981122155917.00694974 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA03659
Resent-Message-ID: <"2ZN2x3.0.uw.dSRMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24963
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



At 09:06 AM 11/23/98 -1000, Rick wrote:

>   <<  Instant Delta T, as opposed to absolute temperatures
>   <<  over time, can reflect  only what the cell is doing and
>   <<  not what goes on in the outer circuit.
>
>          >   Not true - with feedback in the steady state.
>
>If, within a certain operating range of absolute input temperature, a cell
>adds 10�C to a given flow, then it will have a Delta T of 10�C no matter if
>the external circuit keeps feeding it artificially cooled electrolyte or
>not.

  In a real system, it is a bit more complicated because there are so
many routes of heat and mass loss.  ;-)  
 [e.g. there might be more radiative loss as the core temp increases.]

  The issue was whether cooling was included; and it was - or as Rick
correctly states the temperature would have kept increasing.
 
   Mitchell Swartz


     

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 13:01:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02091;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:57:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:57:36 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b27f6e8e87b9 [208.228.222.201]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:04:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and
 H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"h-Na2.0.XW.0nSMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24964
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:36 PM 11/22/98, Mike Carrell wrote:
[snip]
>Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions, H+
>and D+, and are monatomic.

Personally, I don't feel I've seen the whole story on this.  The diffusion
rate of hydrogen in Pd is in the same order of magnitude as in the
electrolyte.  This implies to me some kind of retardation process, like the
H3O+ rotation process in the electrolyte.  Bockris seems to imply the
diffusion occurs in a montomic state.  He states that the metal lattice is
deformed (outwardly) by the hydrogen atom in the interstitial sites of the
lattice.  A hydrogen nucleus without an orbital electron can not do this.
Therefore, at least some portion of the time during the diffusion through
the lattice, there must be an electron in an orbital about the diffusing
nucleus.  Perhaps that orbital is shared with a metal nucleus.  Bockris
specifically distinguishes this monatomic diffusion from the formation of
hydrogen molecules, which he states form in the large (100 A) voids in the
lattice.

When looking at the geometry of the lattice, it struck me that the smaller
radius dumbell shaped molecule fits through the triangular face holes much
more easily than monatomic hydrogen.  It seems to me that a good portion of
the migration might occur in molecular form.  Further, monatomic hydrogen
is way too large to fit through the face holes, and, in high concentration,
would cause a very large deformation of the lattice.  Diffusion in this
form would have to involve repeated ionization of the monatomic hydrogen.
This to me seems unlikely at room temperature at a rate sufficient to
sustain the diffusion.

Another thing of interest is that, if the H+ exists in purely ionic form in
the lattice, it will be closely shadowed by a conduction band electron, so
would present a net zero charge in the lattice.  Applying an electrostatic
field gradient in the metal should not make the ionically bound pair move,
unless the gradient were so large as to be exceed the gradient between the
ionicaly bound pair.  Now, if the H+ does exist in this ionic bond form,
i.e. is not in a shared orbital with the Pd, each hydrogen in this state
should be ionically bound to exactly one conduction band electron.  In
effect this removes the ionically bound conduction band electron from the
pool of electrons which make the metal lattice conduct.  There is exactly
one electron per metal atom in the lattice.  Therefore, when loading passes
a 1:1 ratio of adsorbed H atoms to metal atoms, the metal should become an
insulator.  In fact, this should happen much sooner, because you don't have
to tie up every electron to cut off every possible conduction path.  This
turning of the metal into an insulator does not happen!  Yes, the
conductivity decreases, and this used in some experiments to determine the
amount of hydrogen loading, but it does not disappear.

So, what does this mean?  It means to me that it is unlikely the
interstitial hydrogen is in an ionic bond state a large percentage of the
time. We could considertunneling as a mechanism for migrating between
interstitialspaces, but  we already know that at even the smaller distance
between nucleii in an H2 atom that tunneling only rarely occurs, so this
option seems an unlikely possiblity.

Since it is not likely the thermal kinetic energy is available in the
lattice to ionize monatomic hydrogen, it seems impossible to me that
hydrogen could be diffusing at such a rapid rate in monatomic form.
Therefore, it seems likely to me the hydrogen must be diffusing in
molecular form.

Something that might make an interesting experiment is looking at changes
in the hall effect potential across thin metal films in strong transverse
magnetic fields as hydrogen is adsorbed. A change in this potential that
exceeds changes expected due to the metal resistance increasing would
indicate a change in the charge carrier as the lattice fills.  If the
hydrogen exists in ionic form in the lattice, then the conduction should
become more carried by protons vs electrons.  This is because each motion
of charge must involve the separation of an ionically bound pair. However,
it may be difficult to detect this, because the proton is 3 orders of
magnitude heavier than the electron, so the current would still be carried
primarily by electrons simply due to the inirtia of the protons.

Just food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 13:13:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05146;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:06:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:06:25 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b27f7fd095df [208.228.222.192]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:13:20 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Diffusion of hydrogen in metal lattice (corrected)
Resent-Message-ID: <"2EDZ72.0.KG1.GvSMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24965
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:36 PM 11/22/98, Mike Carrell wrote:
[snip]
>Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions, H+
>and D+, and are monatomic.

Personally, I don't feel I've seen the whole story on this.  The diffusion
rate of hydrogen in Pd is in the same order of magnitude as in the
electrolyte.  This implies to me some kind of retardation process, like the
H3O+ rotation process in the electrolyte.  Bockris seems to imply the
diffusion occurs in a montomic state.  He states that the metal lattice is
deformed (outwardly) by the hydrogen atom in the interstitial sites of the
lattice.  A hydrogen nucleus without an orbital electron can not do this.
Therefore, at least some portion of the time during the diffusion through
the lattice, there must be an electron in an orbital about the diffusing
nucleus.  Perhaps that orbital is shared with a metal nucleus.  Bockris
specifically distinguishes this monatomic diffusion from the formation of
hydrogen molecules, which he states form in the large (100 A) voids in the
lattice.

When looking at the geometry of the lattice, it struck me that the smaller
radius dumbell shaped molecule fits through the triangular face holes much
more easily than monatomic hydrogen.  It seems to me that a good portion of
the migration might occur in molecular form.  Further, monatomic hydrogen
is way too large to fit through the face holes, and, in high concentration,
would cause a very large deformation of the lattice.  Diffusion in this
form would have to involve repeated ionization of the monatomic hydrogen.
This to me seems unlikely at room temperature at a rate sufficient to
sustain the diffusion.

Another thing of interest is that, if the H+ exists in purely ionic form in
the lattice, it will be closely shadowed by a conduction band electron, so
would present a net zero charge in the lattice.  Applying an electrostatic
field gradient in the metal should not make the ionically bound pair move,
unless the gradient were so large as to be exceed the gradient between the
ionicaly bound pair.  Now, if the H+ does exist in this ionic bond form,
i.e. is not in a shared orbital with the Pd, each hydrogen in this state
should be ionically bound to exactly one conduction band electron.  In
effect this removes the ionically bound conduction band electron from the
pool of electrons which make the metal lattice conduct.  There is exactly
one conduction band electron per metal atom in the lattice.  Therefore,
when loading passes a 1:1 ratio of adsorbed H atoms to metal atoms, the
metal should become an insulator.  In fact, this should happen much sooner,
because you don't have to tie up every conduction band electron to cut off
every possible conduction path.  This turning of the metal into an
insulator does not happen!  Yes, the conductivity decreases, and this used
in some experiments to determine the amount of hydrogen loading, but it
does not disappear.

So, what does this mean?  It means to me that it is unlikely the
interstitial hydrogen is in an ionic bond state a large percentage of the
time. We could considertunneling as a mechanism for migrating between
interstitialspaces, but  we already know that at even the smaller distance
between nucleii in an H2 atom that tunneling only rarely occurs, so this
option seems an unlikely possiblity.

Since it is not likely the thermal kinetic energy is available in the
lattice to ionize monatomic hydrogen, it seems impossible to me that
hydrogen could be diffusing at such a rapid rate in monatomic form.
Therefore, it seems likely to me the hydrogen must be diffusing in
molecular form.

Something that might make an interesting experiment is looking at changes
in the hall effect potential across thin metal films in strong transverse
magnetic fields as hydrogen is adsorbed. A change in this potential that
exceeds changes expected due to the metal resistance increasing would
indicate a change in the charge carrier as the lattice fills.  If the
hydrogen exists in ionic form in the lattice, then the conduction should
become more carried by protons vs electrons.  This is because each motion
of charge must involve the separation of an ionically bound pair. However,
it may be difficult to detect this, because the proton is 3 orders of
magnitude heavier than the electron, so the current would still be carried
primarily by electrons simply due to the inirtia of the protons.

Just food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 13:45:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA21658;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:43:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:43:44 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123154250.0078bb3c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:42:50 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Diffusion of hydrogen in metal lattice (corrected)
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b27f7fd095df [208.228.222.192]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7h5Bk.0.KI5.FSTMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24966
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:13 11/23/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>At 10:36 PM 11/22/98, Mike Carrell wrote:
>[snip]
>>Hydrogen, and deuterium diffusing through the cathode cell do so as ions, H+
>>and D+, and are monatomic.
>
>Personally, I don't feel I've seen the whole story on this.

One thing is for certain.  Each H nucleus in a loaded Pd specimen has an
electron "with" it.  Otherwise an impossibly huge net positive charge would
result.  The question is where is that electron and is it bound to the H
nucleus like it is in free space.  Since the free-space potential well is
13.6 eV deep, I would expect it to be rather tightly associated with the H
nucleus...not in the Pd conduction band.  I am guessing.  Anybody know?



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 14:10:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01194;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:08:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:08:43 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:03:19 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Bernard Instability
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199811231707_MC2-6137-CAE0 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"qg15L1.0.aI.gpTMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24967
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

>> Gravity acting upon density inversion yields mass transfer
which can be observed even in a cup of coffee.  That inversion
and mass transfer can add a term which is increasingly important
in vertical flow systems where the applied flow is relatively
low. <<

Thank you - I understand that.  The important bit surely is "where the
applied flow is relatively low"

Am I right in assuming that the aspect ratio of the chamber and outlet
pipework can have a major effect on the 'extra' term, or is the L/Xsection
unimportant, other than its effect on the speed of flow?

I'm trying to get a handle on the scale effect of Bi.

BTW, who was/is Bernard?

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 14:28:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20655;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <011001be172f$909d9220$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: twist (http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/twist.txt)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:20:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01BE16F4.C36107E0"
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: <"18C1K2.0.d25.d3UMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24969
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_0054_01BE16F4.C36107E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A bit more esoteric version of  Diffusion of Hydrogen in Palladium.  Horace
will like this one.  :)

http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/twist.txt

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BE16F4.C36107E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="twist.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="twist.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/twist.txt
Modified=C08697342F17BE0116

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BE16F4.C36107E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 14:28:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09758;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:26:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:26:23 -0800
Message-ID: <00ea01be172c$8ad27200$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Hydrogen in Metals III (http://www.springer-ny.com/catalog/np/mar97np/DATA/3-54
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:59:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE16F1.D03DE800"
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: <"tnO582.0.OO2.F4UMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24970
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_0042_01BE16F1.D03DE800
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There's your answer Scott.   :)

http://www.springer-ny.com/catalog/np/mar97np/DATA/3-540-61639-x.html

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE16F1.D03DE800
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Hydrogen in Metals III.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Hydrogen in Metals III.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.springer-ny.com/catalog/np/mar97np/DATA/3-540-61639-x.html
Modified=00E51E4E2C17BE0153

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE16F1.D03DE800--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 14:33:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20641;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <010f01be172f$8f896300$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Hydrogen Damage (http://www.metalogic.be/MatWeb/reading/corrosie/c_hyd.htm)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:12:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01BE16F3.A6196A20"
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: <"L_F_G1.0.Q25.c3UMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24968
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_004B_01BE16F3.A6196A20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ATOMIC HYDROGEN diffusion-damage

http://www.metalogic.be/MatWeb/reading/corrosie/c_hyd.htm

------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BE16F3.A6196A20
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Hydrogen Damage.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Hydrogen Damage.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.metalogic.be/MatWeb/reading/corrosie/c_hyd.htm
Modified=A03FFA112E17BE01EE

------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BE16F3.A6196A20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 14:37:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16246;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:36:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:36:09 -0800
From: HLafonte aol.com
Message-ID: <e9550668.3659e20a aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:30:34 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: test (delete)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49
Resent-Message-ID: <"g5w0Z3.0.mz3.PDUMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24971
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

test (delete)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 15:16:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02228;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:13:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:13:24 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123181505.00813600 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:15:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Bernard Instability
In-Reply-To: <199811231707_MC2-6137-CAE0 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jdgff1.0.ZY.ImUMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24972
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 05:03 PM 11/23/98 -0500, Norman Horwood wrote:

>>> Gravity acting upon density inversion yields mass transfer
>which can be observed even in a cup of coffee.  That inversion
>and mass transfer can add a term which is increasingly important
>in vertical flow systems where the applied flow is relatively
>low. <<
>
>Thank you - I understand that.  The important bit surely is "where the
>applied flow is relatively low"
>
>Am I right in assuming that the aspect ratio of the chamber and outlet
>pipework can have a major effect on the 'extra' term, or is the L/Xsection
>unimportant, other than its effect on the speed of flow?
>

  No. It will only prevent the Bernard flow IF there is no other
flow AND the width is smaller than a Rayleigh-Taylor wavelength.
See "Continuum Electromechanics", Jim Melcher, MIT Press.

  Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 15:16:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02714;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:14:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:14:48 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3659DEF3.6AD8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:17:23 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Diffusion of hydrogen in metal lattice (corrected)
References: <3.0.1.32.19981123154250.0078bb3c mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lOpp22.0.Fg.dnUMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24973
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 23, 1998

Vortex,

Scott asked:

>The question is where is that electron and is it bound to the H
> nucleus like it is in free space.  Since the free-space potential well >is 13.6 eV deep, I would expect it to be rather tightly associated with >the H nucleus...not in the Pd conduction band.  I am guessing.  Anybody >know?

To quote Thomas Graham (1870's) in his Palladium studies:

"The condensed Hydrogen, as might be anticipated, is chemically active.
A palladium wire charged with hydrogen, and immersed in a solution of
ferric salt, reduces it to the state of ferrous salt; potassium
ferricyanide becomes ferrocyanide; chlorine water forms hydrocloric
acis; and iodine becomes hydriodic acid. Solutions of mercuric chloride,
of certain oxy-salts, and of vanadic acid are also found to be reduced
by the occluded hydrogen. In respect to its chemical activity the
condensed hydrogen is related to ordinary hydrogen much as ozone is
related to hydrogen."

I presume deuterium acts similarly although not discovered in Graham's
time yet. It could stand checking out. Especially since it is deuterium
chemisorbtion (otherwise  also known as occlusion, interstitial and
surface adsorption) that is causing the fusion fuss.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 16:32:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA31074;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:29:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:29:57 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123193138.00812100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:31:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mjones@jump.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981123172114.00686638 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <199811232120.PAA03267 mail11.jump.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"9jk0u.0.Nb7.4uVMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24974
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


At 05:21 PM 11/23/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>	It seems likely that the low power run was producing about 200 watts, as
>claimed by CETI, rather than the 469 watts originally calculated by Jed.
>Whatever the true power output, it seems virtually certain to have been
>wildly over unity, because *it is absurd to suppose that the flow rate
>measurement could have been sufficiently in error to account for all of the
>excess*. . . . For myself, I am not denying that the device was over unity.
>All I deny is that it was as far over unity as Jed claims that it was." 
>	--  Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic I-link.net), "Magnum 350 Run,"
>sci.physics.fusion, Mon, 25 Mar 1996 15:55
>
>Rothwell:
>  In the message you reference, you conclude that a kink changed the flow
>rate. This, however, is quite impossible, because it would have caused a
>sudden, large change in the outlet thermocouple, as John Logajan and others
>pointed out. 

  It is possible, because of the amplification impact of the
Bernard instability.  The excellent points made by Mitchell Jones
regarding signficant flow changes and the importance of real
time monitoring with the same impedance to flow are important as well.

  Hope that helps.
    Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 19:16:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03165;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:15:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:15:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123221315.0068b478 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:13:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Jones kink hypothesis details
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lOe_6.0.Nn.uIYMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24975
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Don't get your hopes up -- this has nothing to do with kinkiness.

The hypothesis in question is that the flow rate at Power Gen was
significantly wrong. Many people have suggested this. Mitchell Jones
ascribes the hypothetical change in flow rate to a kink in the tube. Let us
look a little closer at the kink hypothesis, because it is a good
opportunity to review some calorimeter basics.  There are a number reasons
why I believe it is impossible. The main ones are listed below. I suppose
the flow rate might have changed, but not significantly. The excess might
have been ~1000 instead of 1200, or ~450 instead of 470 in the later run.
Let me ask Jones to go over my analysis step by step, and point out any
weaknesses or flaws. [This took me a few minutes to compose, so I am moving
it to mainstream Vortex-L from the Gab Channel.]

Let's consider Run #2: 0.1 watts input, or 1.4 calories per minute. The
Delta T is 6.7 deg C.

First, let us assume the cell is a perfect insulator, even thought that is
manifestly impossible. In that case, the flow would have to be 0.2 ml/min.
(Volume of water = calories / temperature rise.)

At this flow rate, it would take ~8.3 hours for the fluid to travel one
meter from the reservoir to the cell. After 8 hours it would be stone cold,
which means the cell would actually have to heat the water from ambient
(say 22 deg C) to 41 degrees, a 19 deg C Delta T. This brings the flow down
to 0.07 ml/minute.

However, we know that the fluid did not take 8 hours to reach the cell. As
I said, we could see bubbles move rapidly through the tubes, even when we
were not collecting fluid samples. We measured the inlet temperature with
the thermocouple in the tube and, as I stated in the report, also by
drawing a sample of inlet fluid at the cell. The inlet temperature was only
0.1 or 0.2 deg C cooler than the reservoir, so we know it did not take more
than a few minutes for the water to travel to the inlet. Right away we know
the flow rate had to be at least, say, 100 ml, which means the Delta T
temperature should have been 0.014 deg C, which would be too small for me
to measure.

In reality, we know the cell was poorly insulated. It was palpably warm,
and when power was off the 35 deg C inlet water cooled measurably as it
passed through the cell, losing ~10 watts. So a 0.1 watt input would never
show a positive Delta T. Even if the flow was reduced to zero, the cell
could never even heat the fluid from 35 to 41 degrees; the temperature
would fall instead.

The next set of problems occur on the outlet side. Again, at this flow
rate, the water would have substantially cooled by the time it reached the
outlet thermocouple. It would be down to ambient an hour later when it
reached the outlet sampling stopcocks. This presents another problem. The
cell holds approximately 10 ml. I took a 250 ml sample. If the flow rate
was 0.2 or 0.07 ml/minute, I would be mixing 10 ml of warm water (at 41 deg
C) with 240 ml of room temperature water, which would come out just a
little warmer than ambient. Even if the 10 ml was at boiling (which is
impossible) the overall sample temperature would not rise to 41 deg C.
Furthermore, as Logajan first pointed out, the outlet thermocouple would
immediately drop to ambient, as water equaling 25 times the volume of the
cell swept through. This did not happen.

As I mentioned in the first message, we have other firm evidence that the
flow was nothing like 0.2 or 0.07 ml: we could see and hear the water
moving, and pouring back into the reservoir. You can see it and hear it too
when you review the tape of the ABC Good Morning America interview. One
drop of water per minute does not splash and make noise. You do not see the
bubbles swirl through the tubes.

For the sake of argument, let us assume we measured the power incorrectly.
Say it wasn't 0.1 watts, it was 5 watts, the maximum rated output of the
Radio Shack power supply. That hardly changes the numbers. Assuming a
perfectly insulated cell, the flow rate would be 11 ml per minute, and the
trip from reservoir to cell would take ~9 minutes, which would
substantially cool the water. All of the other arguments hold. In fact,
even 5 watts would be virtually impossible to detect with this calorimeter
and my thermometers, not matter what the flow rate was, and a 6 deg C
temperature rise would be out of the question. Given the warm reservoir and
the poorly insulated cell, 5 watts it would show up as negative heat at any
flow rate.

Those are the main reasons I think any flow rate could have produced a 6.7
deg C artifact at these power levels.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 19:24:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07460;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:22:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:22:59 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123222005.006890b8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:20:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Jones kink hypothesis details - korekshun
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lEANV2.0.Mq1.JQYMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24976
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The last line was wrong, which spoils the effect. It should read:

Those are the main reasons I DO NOT think any flow rate could have produced
a 6.7 deg C artifact at these power levels.


The power levels are the key.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 20:24:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA30986;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:21:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:21:41 -0800
Message-ID: <19981124042440.16353.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:24:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bernard Instability
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"FA_sW2.0.4a7.KHZMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24977
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hey, guys, it's Benard instability, not BeRnard. Strictly speaking,
the e also has an accent...B�nard.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 21:31:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA25139;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:29:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:29:13 -0800
Message-ID: <19981124053014.1138.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:30:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"U2sAj2.0.g86.eGaMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24978
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Some information on H and D in Pd:

The radii of H and D atoms are very nearly identical. The radius of an
atom is set by the orbital of the outermost electron(s). Since both H
and D nuclei have the same charge, the electron orbital is almost the
same in both. The different nuclear properties have only small effects
on the electrons.

H and D exist as ions H+ and D+ in Pd. The positive charge of the ions
is neutralized by the electrons stripped off the original atoms. Each
ion is surrounded in the metal by a distorted distribution of
electrons from the host metal plus one extra electron. As an H+ or D+
moves through the metal lattice, a distorted electron distribution
moves along with it. This is an important difference between metal and
insulator hosts...electrons are mobile in metals. H+ and D+ move
relatively easily, compared with other ions, because these ions are
very small. H+ and D+ do not have any other tightly bound electrons
around the nucleus that would make them large ions. However, this does
not mean that H+ and D+ move freely. Because they have charge, they
are attracted and repelled by the charges of the nearby Pd atoms. The
H+ and D+ tend to stick in potential wells, places to which they are
electrostatically attracted, and they move along only when they get a
big enough bump from some thermal agitation to jump to a neighboring
potential well or attractive spot.

The greater mass of D relative to H affects behavior that depends on
velocity. At a given temperature or potential, velocity is
proportional to square root of mass, so D moves more slowly than H.
Thus, D diffuses more slowly than H.

Electrolysis of H2O and D2O liberates atomic H or D near the
electrode, and much of that atomic species diffuses to the cathode. H
and D drop in potential when they enter Pd metal. As H or D
concentration rises, the concentration of H or D at the surface (and
this includes interior surfaces, like cracks) also rises. As in any
chemical system, there is always some back reaction, so some of the
surface H or D escape. The escape rate increases with concentration in
the metal. Rate equilibrium is attained when the rate of escape equals
the rate of entry from electrolysis. If the H-containing Pd is in a
confined volume, rather than vented to the atmosphere, the escaping H
or D increases the pressure of the corresponding gas in the volume.
Equilibrium is attained when the rate of escape from the surface
equals the rate of supply by electrolysis PLUS entry into the Pd of
gas molecules striking the Pd surface. However, H2 and D2 molecules
are not readily absorbed by Pd. Only a tiny fraction is absorbed, in
contrast to atomic H and D. Therefore, the equilibrium exists at a
very high gas pressure. The energy to compress the gas comes from the
energy that the atomic H or D releases when it enters the Pd, and, of
course, most of that energy comes from the electrolysis. No free lunch.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 21:41:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17980;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01b001be176c$1fc40740$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron-Deuteron Collisions?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:33:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"iVYR-2.0.sO4.GQaMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24979
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

In an Electron-Deuteron collision the energy goes "up" the positive
Lennard-Jones Potential
Curve:         |
              +|   <-- Separation R -->
               |\
Potential     0|-------------------
               |  \  /
              _|   \/
               |
Then the collision(Electromagnetic Interaction) can create a
neutrino-antineutrino pair and turn the proton portion of the deuteron into
a "Light Neutron" releasing the  attached Neutron with each being about 1.12
mev lighter than "Regular Neutrons" to account for the 2.23 Mev
neutron-proton binding energy in Deuterium.

This is simply a matter of conservative energy-mass sharing by the quarks in
the deuteron.

Any kinetic energy exhibited by the "Light Neutrons" will show up as heat as
they thermalize, and Absorption-Transmutation of heavy metals by them should
be possible.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 21:57:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA18715;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <365A4A55.1C6D earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:55:33 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Storms:  evidence weak for He and heat in CF  11.23.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"060d1.0.La4.PfaMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24980
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
11.22.98
  Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:55:28 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> Rich, the model you propose is simply impossible, as I have explained
> previously. I say this not to defend the nuclear explanation, but to
> keep the discussion in the realm of good science, a condition skeptics
> keep demanding. It does no good to provide an explanation which is
> clearly impossible to avoid one you happen to believe is impossible.
> The difference between the two explanations is that the mechanisms
> involved in your model are well understood and are very basic to
> physics. On the other hand, the explanation you are trying to reject has
> some possibility of being correct, Dick Blue not withstanding. Prosaic
> explanations must at least be consistent with reality as science
> understands it.  I suggest you  either abandon this idea or demonstrate
> with the proper calculations why I�m wrong. Good luck.
>
> Ed Storms

Well, once again I see my name being taken in vain by someone claiming
to be an advocate of "good science."  Let's just see if we can, in fact,
get Ed Storms to practice what he preaches.

Rich went out on a limb to propose a specific, detailed hypothesis which
Ed Storms declares is impossible.  He then asserts that his nuclear
reaction hypothesis "has some possibility of being correct, Dick Blue
not withstanding."  Ed continues with, "Prosaic explanations must at
least be consistent with reality as science understands it."

I don't disagree with that last statement, but it seems to me that if Ed
Storms is to live up it, we must be able to carry our discussion of a
possible CANR process through to the making of a specific, testable
hypothesis -- something we can check against some reasonable standard
for reality as science understands it.  If Ed Storms had the guts that
Rich Murray shows he would, by now, be stating precisely what he
considers a possible nuclear reaction process to account for the
experimental data as he has selected it.

When it comes to the specifics of a nuclear reaction process, where has
Ed Storms and his extensive reviews of the field brought us?  I gather
he is now asserting that some form of an (n, alpha) reaction process
is likely to account for the observed helium and excess heat.

First, I believe, we should appreciate just where things stand with
respect to the experimental evidence for helium as a reaction product
as opposed to a simple, troublesome contaminant.  I refer to a
review article by Ed Storms dated June 27, 1998, which is indicated
for publication in Infinite Energy.  Surely this has the latest
and greatest evidence to support Ed's current reaction hypothesis.

That evidence appears in Fig. 7 and is the results of Miles et al.
(1996) and Bush and Lagowshi (1996).  It is a plot of the
number of "atoms helium/watt-sec" versus "excess power (watt)".
There are 10 data points displayed with, of course, their error
bars on two axes.

Let us first examine the "excess power" coordinate.  The values
of excess power are generally clustered around 0.05 Watts with
errors of +/- 0.02 Watts.  There is but one datum with a power
level of roughly 0.12 Watts.  These are hardly strong evidence
for there being any real "excess power", especially in light
of the limitations of isoperibolic calorimetry and a tendency
for Miles and Bush to overstate the precision of their measurements.
I simply don't find this very convincing evidence for any sort of
exotic nuclear reaction process.

Now on to  the "helium" coordinate of this graph.  Normal practice
when doing a correlation analysis is to make a graph which is
linear with respect to both variables to determine the slope
of a straight line which provides a best fit to the data.  However,
the Fig. 7 plot is semi-log covering two decades on the helium
axis.  Those of you familiar with the fine art of plotting data
will recognize that the use of a log scale serves to compress
the range of the data with a side benefit that the variability
of result and size of the error bars seem less significant.

Taking the error bars into consideration, my reading of the data
in Fig. 7 is that the ammount of helium detected may well be
independent of the power level. If you lump the data around 0.05
watts and treat it as a single measurement to be compared to the
result at 0.12 watts one could make a case for saying that the
lower power yields helium at almost twice the scaled rate for the
higher power level.  That is just about what you would expect to
see if the increased power had absolutely no effect on helium
production.

Of course I have been a little dishonest up to this point because,
if Ed Storms is correct, there are  "virtual data" for the runs
which yield no excess heat that are not plotted in Fig. 7.
These are the data points said to lie at (0,0) on our correlation
plot.  However, since these data are not exhibited we cannot
really determine how much like a true (zero, zero) measurement
these results appear.  Because the results, I suspect, are very
close to the limits of precision with respect to both measurements
distiguishing between "zero" helium and 10^11 atoms of helium
is not straightforward and obvious.  Neither is it possible
to clearly separate "zero" excess heat from 0.05 watts using
the techniques employed for these measurements.  I really
would like to see all the data, including the "zeroes", before
I make any judgement.

The data presented in Fig. 7 are totally consistant with a
hypothesis which asserts that the helium is an incidental
contaminant, not the product of some exotic and undetectable
nuclear reaction process.  However, I will note that these
data may well be adequate to disprove the reaction hypothesis
that Ed Storms is now attempting to float.  As is indicated
in Fig. 7, the level of helium seen is roughly appropriate
for a reaction that yields 24 MeV per reaction event, but
the proposed (n, alpha) reaction most likely will not yield
nearly that much energy.  Two MeV per reaction is likely to
be a more appropriate energy scale, and that will require
10 times more helium than has been detected!

So less energy per event requires more helium (or other
reaction product.) It should also be acknowledged that
the higher the energy available, the more likely it becomes
that something such as gamma decay or neutron emission
will be involved.  What Ed Storms considers "possible" is
largely colored by what he does not know. It is a rather
dangerous position from which to be making pronouncements
as to what may be scientifically reasonable about a
CANR process and opposed to something chemical and atomic.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 22:11:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA09322;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:09:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:09:24 -0800
Message-ID: <365A4D96.3AB4 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:09:26 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  11.23.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"NQ9WE1.0.aH2.JsaMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24981
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: more band state theory 11.20.98
  Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:51:28 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

I have been trying for years to get Scott Chubb to make a
simple, direct statement as to how his theory treats the
internal coordinate of the deuteron.  Over and over again
I ask this question.  What is the potential which determines
the eigenfunction for that part of the deuteron wave function
that describes the motion of nucleons within a deuteron?

I thought I had received a clear statement from Scott that
he considered that potential to be periodic mod R where R
is the lattice spacing for the D+ ion band lattice.
Is that potential periodic as described?  Yes or No???
It's a simple and direct question, and Scott had given
me an answer which I challenged on the basis of the actual
physics of the problem.

Now he is back peddling and asserting that my question is
irrelevant to the issues at hand.  I read that to mean
that he still has not really addressed anything relating
to the internal wave function of the deuteron.  My position
remains that one simply cannot do a theory for a nuclear
reaction process unless you include the internal coordinates
of the reacting nuclei in the problem.

We can, of course, continue to consider the question as to
whether coherence of the wave function for the center-of-mass
motion of the deuterons can lead to some unexpected overlap
between two deuterons.  That is indeed an interesting
question to consider.  My point is not that said overlap
is impossible, but I do insist that the resulting reaction
will share certain characteristics of the more familiar
muon-catalyzed cold fusion.  That is unless and until
someone gives a justification which involves significant
pertubations of the internal wavefunction of the interacting
deuterons.  That, in a nut shell, is why the interal wave
functions are a significant aspect of this problem in spite
of Scott Chubb's assertions to the contrary.      Dick Blue

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Shanahan: Blue: band state theory 11.20.98
  Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:25:42 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> Subject: Re: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
>       Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:04:58 -0500
>       From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>
> Dick,
>
>      Please try to look at what is being said, prior to responding
> vacuously. I am beginning to find your comments tiring.  I have
> "gleaned" some insights from the discussion.  But it appears your
> comments our now degenerating into a tirade.  Note the following from my
> last two comments:
>
> 1.  The lattice does not have to be perfect!
>
> 2.  The deuteron ion band states only interact with themselves; which is
> where approximate periodic order is required!
>
> 3.  The idealization of T=0 is not required!
>
> 4.  Please try to read before you blurt out meaningless comments!
>
> 5.  Please try to do science, instead of pontificating!
>
> 6.  Please look at my comments to Kirk Shanahan, and my comments to you!

Please answer a few simple, direct questions concerning the physics of
nuclear reactions and stop attempting to hid behind some supposed
superior understand of condensed matter physics.  If we are to discuss a
nuclear reaction process, surely the nuclear physics becomes relevant at
some point, yet you actual assert that you can "explain" all without
even thinking about the reaction physics.  Who are you to accuse me of
"pontificating"? Read your own frequent assertions concerning the limits
of my understanding.

Now one test of the validity the of your theory is whether others,
equally well versed in condensed matter physics, consider your papers
suitable for publication in Physical Review, for example.  I gather that
you have not had much success with journal referees.  Have you been 
presenting your ideas to any audience capable of excercising reasonable
critical judgements?

In my comments to Kirk Shanahan I pointed out that Ed Storms has been
moving away from d + d fusion as a model for CANR process.  That surely
is a question of fact easily checked in this forum.  Do you agree or
disagree that cold fusion, as far as Storms is concerned, is largely
a dead issue?  So where does that leave your wonderful theory?

When you stated the key assumptions which underlie your theory, I recall
that you placed T=0 at the top of the list.  When I call that assumption
into question you now make a big point of saying that having T=0
is not really all that important.  Which way would you have it?

The question, of course, is just how coherent the nuclear wave functions
likely will be over distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  I
don't see that you have done anything to demonstrate that the coherence
must be unusually high for those deuterons in the ion band state.  You
have made some form of "selfconsistancy" argument, but is that not based
on your having left a good deal of physics out of the problem?

In any case, I am not here to dispute whether your overlap between ion
band deuterons might lead to a nuclear reaction.  What I continue to
call to question is precisely what the outcome of said reaction will
be.  If you do not address that question, you have no theory worth
beans. Now why is it so difficult to get you to describe, in some
detail, how you do address the reaction physics?     Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Storms: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
  Date:  Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:44:58 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> Your understanding of my views is correct but not quite complete.  The
> 'special states of matter' require a very high deuterium concentration
> to form.  This high concentration only exists near the surface. The
> depth of the high concentration region will depend on the nature of the
> palladium and the rate at which deuterium is being applied to the
> sample. The region has depth and will have bulk properties. The area of
> the active region will depend on the frequency of surface penetrating
> cracks.  Some active regions many be only a few square microns while
> other areas might be a few square millimeters.  This view in no way
> conflicts with the Chubb model.  The scale on which the model is applied
> is variable but the model is unchanged.
>
> Ed Storms

Here is a point which we should be able to clear up.  Scott Chubb
presents a theory for the reaction d + d -> 4He.  He considers only that
specific reaction.  Ed Storms suggests that this reaction is not, in
fact, responsible for the generation of excess heat.  He proposes an
alternative reaction involving neutron transfer followed by alpha
emission.  Scott Chubb does not address any reaction of that sort. 
There is a clear conflict here, and it seems a little ridiculus to find
Ed Storms saying that his view "in no way conflicts with the Chubb
model."  The conflict is obvious!

> Rich Murray wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.18.98
> >   Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:14:55 -0500 (EST)
> >   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
> >     To:    rmforall earthlink.net
> >
> > Once again Kirk Shanahan has picked up on something very significant,
> > I believe, to this discussion.  That is the clear divergence between
> > the picture presented by Scott Chubb and what Ed Storms is now
> > indicating as his view of CANR.
> >
> > If you believe that the process is cold fusion initiated by some
> > form of quantum coherance appropriate to the conditions of a
> > perfect lattice at T=0, that is what Scott Chubb has been considering.
> > Of course, the experimentalists have been at work gathering evidence
> > which tends to call much of Chubb theory into question.  Thus as
> > Ed Storms attempts to synthesize something from the divergent
> > results from a variety of experiments what he has come up with
> > has less and less connection to the Chubb picture.  Storms is
> > now suggesting something akin to a (d, alpha) reaction involving
> > a yet to be specified "impurity" with the cathode surface
> > conditions playing, it seems, a more significant role than the
> > bulk material.  Those surface conditions simply are not addressed
> > by anything in the Chubb theory; and, I should think, all prospects
> > for having lattice symmetries dictate the outcome of reaction
> > process fly out the window.
> >
> > It now seems that neither Chubb nor Storms can gain much comfort
> > from what the other has to say on this subject.
>
> Once again Dick Blue justifies his rejection of the phenomenon by
> misinterpreting the views of the advocates. Dick should read my recent
> reply to Kirk and to him before commenting further.
>
> Ed Storms

What I have been discussing is not a physical phenonemon which has been
given a clear and unambiguous description.  Ed Storms, it seems, is
refusing to supply such a description.  Of course I reject this muddled
approach in which no one is willing or able to say what phenomena we are
to consider. Unless you will say what phenomenon is being discussed, how
can I avoid a misiterpretation of your views?  Make your views known and
we can take it from there.    Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 22:24:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA13881;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:22:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:22:22 -0800
Message-ID: <365A5096.523B earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:22:14 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Carr: band state therory  11.23.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SPlY72.0.lO3.T2bMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24982
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Carr: Chubb: band state theory 11.21.98
      Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:59:26 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To: rmforall earthlink.net
>>There is ample evidence that in solids what I am saying about coherence,
>>even approximate coherence, in a periodic system is a valid starting
>>point for understanding non-local phenomena.  
>
> You need to make a distinction between intrinsic non-localities 
> and collective phenomena; they are very different. 

Good point; this distinction seems to have confused Dick Blue--

Umklapp (or U) processes are intrinsically non-local because they do not
conserve momentum but do conserve energy.  Phonon-phonon scattering (the
dominant source of heat release in heat conduction at low temperature)
is dominated by Umklapp processes.  (For example, as noted in the
Ashkroft and Mermin reference listed below, on page 503, it is stated
that "in the absence of Umklapp processes the thermal conductivity of an
insulating crystal is infinite.")  Similar phenomena in
electron-electron, electron-phonon, and electron-impurity scattering
also are responsible for the behavior of the electrical conductivity (as
discussed below).  This point is not commonly emphasized, especially the
fact that non-locality is involved;  but it is inherent in the nature of
the interaction.

>>The most striking examples
>>of this are normal conductivity (with the astronomically large
>>scattering lengths that are associated with this phenomenon),  
>
> That is not due to a non-locality, and the electrons do not 
> travel astronomically large distances in a wire.
 
Here, I am referring to the fact that the electron scattering (which
gives rise to the finiteness of electrical conductivity) in metals
occurs at locations where periodic order is broken.  In the idealization
of perfect solids, at zero temperature, for example, as a consequence,
no scattering occurs and the solids are superconducting (which means the
associated scattering lengths are effectively infinite).  

At finite temperature, phonon-electron, electron-electron, and
electron-impurity interactions all provide channels for scattering,
resulting from a breakdown of periodic order.  These are the
well-recognized sources of heat dissipation and are responsible for the
fact that metals possess finite electrical conductivity.

All of this was discovered because the typical scattering lengths (from,
for example, the Drude model of electrical conductivity) that are
inferred from measurement are on the scale of milli-meters to
centimeters.  These are 10^7 - 10^8 times larger than lattice spacings
in these materials.  In fact, this observation (and the breakdown of the
Bohr-Sommerfeld model of conductivity) is the underlying reason that
Bloch developed the modern (non-local) theory of conductivity, in place
of the preceding theories in which it was assumed that electron
conductivity is a local phenomenon.

>>Bragg scattering of X-rays, 
>
> This is a quantum effect of interaction of a particle with a 
> regular lattice whose spacing is comparable to the wavelength 
> of the particle's wavefunction.  

Bragg scattering is a "quantum effect," but it involves non-local
momentum transfer.  In particular, Bragg scattering does not conserve
the momenta of individual photons. But it is an elastic process.  Bragg
scattering only occurs in ordered (or approximately ordered) structures. 

The standard interpretation (see Ashkroft and Mermin reference given
below, pp 96-100, for example) is the following:  The difference between
the incident and reflected momenta of individual photons in Bragg
scattering equals hbar multiplied by a reciprocal lattice vector.  But
global momentum conservation requires, as a consequence, that this
"missing" momentum go somewhere.  As a result, the process is non-local.

>>the Mossbauer effect, 
>
> This is also a result of an atom interacting with its neighbors, 
> and the coherence involved is that expected for a condensed 
> matter system. 
>

It is true that interaction with the neighbors is involved.  But there
is also a non-local feature of the interaction that results  from the
breakdown of momentum conservation. Schwinger, for example, has
emphasized that the associated momentum is shared by all of the atoms in
the lattice.

>>and heat conduction.  
>
> Heat conduction is not a non-local effect.  It is a condensed 
> matter effect produced by interactions among neighboring atoms. 
>

In non-periodic systems, this is true.  In periodic systems, these
interactions play a role, but again there are important, key (Umklapp)
effects (as noted above) that require that a non-local interaction
occur, especially at low temperatures.  I refer you to Ashkroft and
Mermin's text book (N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State
Physics, (Harcourt Brace and Co, Orlando, 1976), 500-503.).  

The reason I assert this is relevant again is associated with the
breakdown of momentum conservation.  In particular, in a manner similar
to the way photon momentum ceases to be conserved in Bragg scattering,
in the problem of heat conduction, in the dominant low-temperature
phonon-phonon scattering processes, momentum also is not conserved.  But
globally, it is conserved.  The result is a non-local process.

> In particular, none of the physical examples you list involve 
> any energy or momentum transfers that are not expected from 
> standard physics. 

This is absolutely true!  None of the examples I have cited involves
energy or momentum transfers that are not expected from standard
physics.  And I assert that the same situation is true in Cold Fusion! 
What seems to be not widely appreciated (and I note your comments as an
example) is the following point:

In a solid, the momenta of potentially scattering "particles" (which
really must be viewed as "waves" in many situations) can arbitrarily
shift by hbar multiplied by a reciprocal lattice vector.  BUT momentum
conservation always must hold, globally.  In order for both results to
hold, the lattice must be capable of "recoiling" on any time-scale in a
manner that preserves crystalline order and conserves energy.  Because
the lattice "recoils" (i.e., it "moves" or has its physical boundaries
changed), the interaction is non-local.  This is the meaning of the
terminology "resonant coherent interaction resulting from periodic
order."

>>I am
>>in good company in believing that coherence plays a role in the
>>underlying description of the associated Cold Fusion phenomena.  In
>>particular, Julian Schwinger held a similar view.
>
> I don't recall that it concerned your theory however.  ;-)
>

My comments about the Mossbauer effect are very much in line with what
Schwinger said.  Schwinger also noted that the electromagnetic and
nuclear forms of reaction certainly need not be separable.  Schwinger
assumed that "effectively all lattices cites can absorb momentum
coherently" (my paraphrase of comments he made in the Proceedings of the
First Annual Cold Fusion Conference).

>>Your [Dick Blue's] view may have relevance to many situations.  But it
>>has limited relevance to situations involving fully-loaded Pd.  
>
> What does your theory say is the reason for irreproducibility. 
> Specifically, what could be done differently so that every 
> experiment produced heat? 

Crystal size is probably important because there is a definite need to
expel the 4He by-product and to preserve periodic order (at least
approximately).  Crystals that are about a micron or slightly less on a
side are probably optimal at room temperature and above.  At reduced
temperatures, these considerations may not be so important.  Lack of
crystalline order, the inability to achieve high loading (especially in
larger crystals), crack formation are all detrimental to achieving heat.

>>It is still true that exponential fall-off occurs in each unit cell.
>>However, this fall-off repeats itself.  
>
> What is relevant, then, is how small it gets before doing so, 
> since what you write is true for nucleus in every lattice.  You 
> need to establish a probability that the two nuclei are in the 
> same place, not a probability that the two are far apart. 
>

The probability for getting the two nuclei in the same place is defined
by the overlap that results from interplay between electromagnetic and
nuclear interactions.  The relevant variable is r1-r2, where r1 is the
center-of-mass of one deuteron and r2 is the center-of-mass of a second
deuteron.  I have referred to this as the deuteron-deuteron separation
variable.  In point of fact, in the electromagnetic wave function, what
is required is that r1-r2 approximately approach zero, or a Bravais
lattice vector, where the deviation from either of these quantities is
on the scale of a nuclear dimension.    Because Born-Oppenheimer
separability in the wave function is used, in fact, overlap in the
electromagnetic (Band state) wave function can be assumed to occur when
r1-r2 is equated with zero or a Bravais lattice vector.  In the nuclear
wave function, however, when this is done, it is required that r1-r2=
nuclear dimension or nuclear dimension + Bravais Lattice vector.

>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac scri.fsu.edu>     | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time.
>

Thanks for your questions--   SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 22:50:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA21374;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:45:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:45:04 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981124004521.009c1e20 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:45:21 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated
  within D2O-Cell and H2O-Cell
In-Reply-To: <19981124053014.1138.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lBT7Z1.0.uD5.lNbMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24983
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:30 PM 11/23/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>Some information on H and D in Pd:

<snip good stuff>   Thanks Michael.

I asked Ed Storms about this issue and here's what he said:

>Scott,
>In order for a compound to form and energy to be released, as is the
>case when beta PdH forms, an electron must change its energy level. This
>change is accomplished by the electron normally associated with H
>entering electron orbits normally associated with palladium.  Since this
>compound is a metal, a conduction band exists which causes some of the
>electrons to share a common energy level with the H and the Pd.
>Depending on which model is used, the hydrogen can be viewed as being
>partially ionized with an amount of ionization which depends on where it
>is located at any particular time.  Calculations and measurements give
>the hydrogen an effective average charge of about 0.25 electrons at
>H/Pd=0.7.  This amount of charge will depend on the composition and will
>approach 1 electron as the composition approaches H/Pd=1.  This is one
>reason why it is hard to make high compositions.  As the composition is
>increased, the bonding energy created by the electron transfer is
>reduced so a higher pressure must be applied to hold the H within the
>lattice. Of course other models arrive at this explanation using a
>different vocabulary.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 23:47:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA05296;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:46:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:46:56 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2801416cd42 [208.228.222.192]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:53:43 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated within D2O-Cell and
 H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cr2HK3.0.cI1.mHcMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24984
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:30 PM 11/23/98, Michael Schaffer wrote:
[snip]
>
>H and D exist as ions H+ and D+ in Pd. The positive charge of the ions
>is neutralized by the electrons stripped off the original atoms. Each
>ion is surrounded in the metal by a distorted distribution of
>electrons from the host metal plus one extra electron. As an H+ or D+
>moves through the metal lattice, a distorted electron distribution
>moves along with it. This is an important difference between metal and
>insulator hosts...electrons are mobile in metals. H+ and D+ move
>relatively easily, compared with other ions, because these ions are
>very small. H+ and D+ do not have any other tightly bound electrons
>around the nucleus that would make them large ions. However, this does
>not mean that H+ and D+ move freely. Because they have charge, they
>are attracted and repelled by the charges of the nearby Pd atoms. The
>H+ and D+ tend to stick in potential wells, places to which they are
>electrostatically attracted, and they move along only when they get a
>big enough bump from some thermal agitation to jump to a neighboring
>potential well or attractive spot.
>
[snip]

Do you have any references on this?  This concept appears to be at odds
with Bockris (see Modern Electrochemistry, p 1330 ff.)  Bockris is
distictly talking about "hydrogen atoms" not ions.  Furthermore, hydrogen
ions, being nuclear in size, would not make the Pd swell like it does.

Maybe it's just my foible, but I am still left with a very unsatisfied
feeling about this issue.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 23:56:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07402;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:53:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:53:09 -0800
Message-ID: <01d301be1775$ed684a40$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron Deuteron Collisions? Experiment
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:44:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"n8hhd2.0.Lp1.aNcMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24985
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Electron bombardment of Lithium Borodeuteride
(LiBD4) made by:

2 LiD + B2D6 ---> 2 LiBD4 (Mp 275 C)

If the Light Neutrons are created, the Boron 10
in the LiBD4 should be fissioned:

n + Boron 10 --->  He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 23 23:57:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA09742;
	Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:57:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:57:06 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b28017ada519 [208.228.222.174]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:04:02 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Diffusion of hydrogen in metal lattice (corrected)
Resent-Message-ID: <"qrpMK3.0.8O2.IRcMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24986
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:17 PM 11/23/98, aki ix.netcom.com wrote:
>November 23, 1998
>
>Vortex,
>
>Scott asked:
>
>>The question is where is that electron and is it bound to the H
>> nucleus like it is in free space.  Since the free-space potential well
>>>is 13.6 eV deep, I would expect it to be rather tightly associated with
>>>the H nucleus...not in the Pd conduction band.  I am guessing.  Anybody
>>>know?
>
>To quote Thomas Graham (1870's) in his Palladium studies:
>
>"The condensed Hydrogen, as might be anticipated, is chemically active.
>A palladium wire charged with hydrogen, and immersed in a solution of
>ferric salt, reduces it to the state of ferrous salt; potassium
>ferricyanide becomes ferrocyanide; chlorine water forms hydrocloric
>acis; and iodine becomes hydriodic acid. Solutions of mercuric chloride,
>of certain oxy-salts, and of vanadic acid are also found to be reduced
>by the occluded hydrogen. In respect to its chemical activity the
>condensed hydrogen is related to ordinary hydrogen much as ozone is
>related to hydrogen."
>
>I presume deuterium acts similarly although not discovered in Graham's
>time yet. It could stand checking out. Especially since it is deuterium
>chemisorbtion (otherwise  also known as occlusion, interstitial and
>surface adsorption) that is causing the fusion fuss.
>
>-AK-


I don't know that this is an indication of the state of hydrogen inside the
electrode.  In fact, Bockris shows a process of de-electronation upon exit
from the electrode (Modern Electrochemisrty, p. 1329, see Fig. 11.48)  The
electronation reaction, whatever it *truly* is, known or not, must be
reversible, i.e. must occur in equilibrium that is skewed by the electrode
potential.  If it is not reversible then we have a mechanism for generating
infinite energy, especially using the thin film approach shown in Fig.
11.48.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 00:12:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA17429;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:11:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:11:56 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b28019e62afe [208.228.222.174]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:18:44 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Anomalous Difference between Reaction Energies Generated	  within D2O-Cell
 and H2O-Cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"3RNCZ2.0.FG4.CfcMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24987
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:45 AM 11/24/98, Scott Little wrote:
>At 09:30 PM 11/23/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>>Some information on H and D in Pd:
>
><snip good stuff>   Thanks Michael.
>
>I asked Ed Storms about this issue and here's what he said:
>
>>Scott,
>>In order for a compound to form and energy to be released, as is the
>>case when beta PdH forms, an electron must change its energy level. This
>>change is accomplished by the electron normally associated with H
>>entering electron orbits normally associated with palladium.  Since this
>>compound is a metal, a conduction band exists which causes some of the
>>electrons to share a common energy level with the H and the Pd.
>>Depending on which model is used, the hydrogen can be viewed as being
>>partially ionized with an amount of ionization which depends on where it
>>is located at any particular time.  Calculations and measurements give
>>the hydrogen an effective average charge of about 0.25 electrons at
>>H/Pd=0.7.  This amount of charge will depend on the composition and will
>>approach 1 electron as the composition approaches H/Pd=1.  This is one
>>reason why it is hard to make high compositions.  As the composition is
>>increased, the bonding energy created by the electron transfer is
>>reduced so a higher pressure must be applied to hold the H within the
>>lattice. Of course other models arrive at this explanation using a
>>different vocabulary.

This is an interesting an reasonable concept. It does leave me curious
about how many electrons can be held in conduction bands.  If an H+ nucleus
shares 1/4 an orbital electron with the lattice, there must be a 3/4
electron available, statistically speaking, in the conduction band somehow
maintaining an ionic bond.  When the ratio reaches 1:1, I have to assume
the orbital electron provided is from the lattice atoms. It appears that
the conduction bands still remain present to some extent, thus the
resistance only drops, but does not disappear.


Thanks to Scott, Michael, Akira and Fred for their info on this question. I
may not be online for a few days due to holiday obligations.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 03:48:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA24522;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:47:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:47:22 -0800
Message-ID: <01f501be179f$94d860c0$52bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: OFF Topic. Holiday Greetings
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:42:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"7mYWi1.0.0_5.ApfMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24988
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday, Horace. You're not going to be Abroad,are
you?  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 06:20:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA32762;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 06:16:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 06:16:27 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124081529.00affb70 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:15:29 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b2801416cd42 [208.228.222.192]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eh0nB2.0.q_7.x-hMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24989
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 22:53 11/23/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>Maybe it's just my foible, but I am still left with a very unsatisfied
>feeling about this issue.

I'm still puzzled about the energetics.  H2 going into Pd has been
empirically shown to be slightly exothermic....~9000 cal/mole (.39 eV per
PdH) is released.  In order for H2 to enter, it must dissociate on the Pd
surface first.  That takes ~103,000 cal/mole of H2 (4.5 eV per H2 or 2.25
eV per H) so there must be something like 2.64 eV of energy released by the
combination of atomic H and Pd.  

Here's my problem: If H's lone electron is to join Pd's conduction band,
won't it take nearly 13.6 eV of energy to get it up there? If so, that
means that a whopping 16+ eV must come out of the Pd-H combination to make
the net result match the observed heat of formation of PdH.

Maybe the H electron's energy just changes a little and pushes one more of
Pd's electrons into the conduction band....?  In that case, it's still
essentially an intact H atom inside the Pd lattice.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 08:57:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18407;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:56:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:56:18 -0800
X-NCC-RegID: it.teseo
Message-Id: <3.0.6.16.19981124183946.34a780ee mail.teseo.it>
X-Sender: clp745a mail.teseo.it
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (16)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:39:46
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Elio Conte <conte teseo.it>
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron Deuteron Collisions?
  Experiment
In-Reply-To: <01d301be1775$ed684a40$52bd2299 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"GfsCJ1.0.XV4.nKkMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24990
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 23.44 23/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>Electron bombardment of Lithium Borodeuteride
>(LiBD4) made by:
>
>2 LiD + B2D6 ---> 2 LiBD4 (Mp 275 C)
>
>If the Light Neutrons are created, the Boron 10
>in the LiBD4 should be fissioned:
>
>n + Boron 10 --->  He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev.
>
>Regards,    Frederick
>
    Dear Frederick,
  have you some detailed information on this experiment generating neutrons?
  May you inform in detail? Have you some material to be sended by e-mail(
   .Doc version)?. As you may know,I am very interested.
                                                        Best regards
                                                            Elio Conte

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 09:08:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA22403;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:06:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:06:55 -0800
Message-ID: <000b01be17cc$37ccf9e0$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium and Helium Generation in the "Kinetic Furnace"?
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:01:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"_aoLA.0.vT5.jUkMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24991
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To; Vortex

Adding Boron 10 to the water in the "Kinetic Furnace" type experiments Might
show production of Lithium and Helium if "Light Neutrons" (0.1% lighter than
Regular Neutrons)are formed by Electron-Deuteron interaction.

Ordinary Ortho-Boric Acid H3BO3 heated to 300 C
will shed the H2O forming Boron Oxide "Glass":

1, 2 H3BO3 + Heat ---> B2O3 + 3 H2O

2, 3 D2O + B2O3 ---> 2 D3BO3

The somewhat water-soluble D3BO3 Acid will then be in the system with
greater solubility at higher water temperature.

Then, IF a "neutron", n* + B 10 ---> He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev, the Lithium or
Helium can be observed.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 09:18:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26462;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:16:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:16:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981124091557.00a0e458 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: Tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:16:00 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"G7qRy2.0.IT6.LdkMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24992
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:15 AM 11/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 22:53 11/23/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>I'm still puzzled about the energetics.  H2 going into Pd has been
>empirically shown to be slightly exothermic....~9000 cal/mole (.39 eV per
>PdH) is released.  In order for H2 to enter, it must dissociate on the Pd
>surface first.  That takes ~103,000 cal/mole of H2 (4.5 eV per H2 or 2.25
>eV per H) so there must be something like 2.64 eV of energy released by the
>combination of atomic H and Pd.  

According to your numbers, **absorbed** not released.  The disociation is
endothermic.

That would lead to an "apparent" production of heat if you spend a long
time loading the Pd with H (at loading power levels too low to detect, ie,
in the mud), and then a short time releasing the H to form H2 molecules (or
D2 molecules).  That said, I know that P&F knew about this and had ruled it
out due to the magnitude of the sudden energy release excesses.  But it
gives you a minimum amount of heat per burst of heat production that you
must exceed first before you make any monumental claims of ou.

Anyway, yes, the D should hold it's electron tightly since the well is
stronger than the Pd.  It could bash about and knock some of the Pd
electrons into the conduction bands though.

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 09:19:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27108;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:17:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:17:43 -0800
Message-ID: <002901be17cd$beb94520$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron Deuteron Collisions? Experiment
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:13:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"E3WIn1.0.Td6.sekMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24993
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Elio Conte <conte teseo.it>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron Deuteron Collisions? Experiment

You wrote:


>At 23.44 23/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>To: Vortex
>>
>>Electron bombardment of Lithium Borodeuteride
>>(LiBD4) made by:
>>
>>2 LiD + B2D6 ---> 2 LiBD4 (Mp 275 C)
>>
>>If the Light Neutrons are created, the Boron 10
>>in the LiBD4 should be fissioned:
>>
>>n + Boron 10 --->  He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev.
>>
>>Regards,    Frederick
>>
>    Dear Frederick,
>  have you some detailed information on this experiment generating
neutrons?

Dear Elio, At this time I only have a theory that low energy electron
bombardment (a few ev), such as in an electrical discharge in LiBD4 MIGHT Do
this.

Best Regards,    Frederick
>  May you inform in detail? Have you some material to be sended by e-mail(
>   .Doc version)?. As you may know,I am very interested.
>                                                        Best regards
>                                                            Elio Conte
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 09:42:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01399;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:37:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:37:36 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:39:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TAxgT.0.jL.WxkMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24994
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



  At 09:56 AM 11/24/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>Can you show that this unsound technique could have caused a 6.7 deg C
>temperature rise with 0.1 watts of input? Can you explain the ABC video? I
>don't think so!


  Actually there is a hypothesis which can account for some
of the differential temperature.  There was an inline heater and 
even an inline pump (another 25 watts, greatly in excess of the applied
input electric power if memory serves).
The incoming water was thus warm, and was put into a vertical box
(tube?, containing 10ml filled with beads, etc) where it would be
further expected that the warm water would rise and stratify,
less dense warmer water rising to the top.  This occurs without flow.

  This Benard instability would give a false erroneous signal -- 
even without any input electrical power, and can contribute
to the measured uncorrected signal with flow
  [confer http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html for the
  prepublication manuscript/excerpt and
  Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
  Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130
   for the full discussion],
-- UNLESS the simplistic equation used was corrected for this 
possible contribution to the "observed" uncorrected heat
   [Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release 
    Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy,
    1, 3, 219-221]  Thanks to all for finally clarifying this.

 
  That is why horizontal flow calorimeters or static calorimetric
systems may be more accurate the vertical flow systems
in relatively low flow conditions.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 10:34:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24319;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:32:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:32:39 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:30:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA24298
Resent-Message-ID: <"9qrkq2.0.vx5.7llMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24995
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

M. Swartz writes:

	Actually there is a hypothesis which can account for some of the
	differential temperature.  There was an inline heater and  even
	an inline pump (another 25 watts, greatly in excess of the
	applied input electric power if memory serves).

The in-line heater was not used. It was required to boost the inlet
temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
air is quite cold. The in-line pump was 25 watts as noted, which is indeed
greatly in excess of 0.1 watts, but most of the heat from it probably
vented into the air. (That is how aquarium pumps are designed to work, to
keep from hurting the fish.)


	Actually there is a hypothesis which can account for some of the
	differential temperature.  There was an inline heater and  even
	an inline pump (another 25 watts, greatly in excess of the
	applied input electric power if memory serves). The incoming
	water was thus warm . . .

Correct, it was warm. And please note it would *not have been warm* if the
flow rate had been less than ~100 ml per minute. It would have been room
temperature because it would have cooled by the time it reached the cell.


	. . . and was put into a vertical box (tube?, containing 10ml
	filled with beads, etc) 

It was a tube. Please refer to the photographs. The capacity of 40 ml as
stated in the report, with roughly 10 ml space left for water. I advise you
to refresh your memory about this kind of detail by rereading the report. I
have had to tell you the capacity of the cell about a dozen times recently,
yet that is a fact which you could have looked in the report.


	. . . where it would be further expected that the warm water
	would rise and stratify, less dense warmer water rising to the
	top.  This occurs without flow.

Right! However, as you see from the photos, the outlet thermocouple was a
good distance away from the top of the cell, and it was behind the 1"
in-line mixer, so the warm water would never have reached it. At zero flow
or a 0.2 ml/minute flow rate, the outlet thermocouple would have registered
room temperature even if the water in the cell had reached 41 deg C.

Furthermore � needless to say � the temperature in of the water in the cup
would have been close to room temperature even if all 10 ml of water from
the cell had been mixed with it.


	This Benard instability would give a false erroneous signal -- 

But not in the cup, naturally.


	That is why horizontal flow calorimeters or static calorimetric
	systems may be more accurate the vertical flow systems in
	relatively low flow conditions.

Yes, Mitch, but you refuse to define "low flow," and this flow was 1,000
ml, which is much higher than most people use when measuring 0.1 watts. I
have shown that even if I mismeasured the flow and it was only 100 ml per
minute, I would not have detected a Delta T. McKubre uses only 60 ml per
minute, and I assume you do not assert that his flow is too low!

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 11:11:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02625;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:08:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:08:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2809b379d23 [208.228.222.174]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:14:56 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"a9fvK2.0.xe.IGmMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24996
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:15 AM 11/24/98, Scott Little wrote:
>At 22:53 11/23/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>Maybe it's just my foible, but I am still left with a very unsatisfied
>>feeling about this issue.
>
>I'm still puzzled about the energetics.  H2 going into Pd has been
>empirically shown to be slightly exothermic....~9000 cal/mole (.39 eV per
>PdH) is released.

Before jumping into this let me say I barely know what I am talking about.

OK, so you are talking H2 gas into Pd, as with the inside of Arata-Zhang
cell, in the PD black.  I suppose we should distiguish how the H gets into
the Pd, though I assumed it doesn't make any difference how it gets there,
that the hydorgen state inside is independent of how it got there.  My
prior discussion was based on electrodeposition of H, as per Bockris.


>In order for H2 to enter, it must dissociate on the Pd
>surface first.  That takes ~103,000 cal/mole of H2 (4.5 eV per H2 or 2.25
>eV per H) so there must be something like 2.64 eV of energy released by the
>combination of atomic H and Pd.

Well, the H is going from one low energy state to another, so don't know if
this is true.

>
>Here's my problem: If H's lone electron is to join Pd's conduction band,
>won't it take nearly 13.6 eV of energy to get it up there? If so, that
>means that a whopping 16+ eV must come out of the Pd-H combination to make
>the net result match the observed heat of formation of PdH.


The electrons in conduction bands are in a lower energy state than free
electrons, i.e. it takes energy to put an electron into free space from a
metal surface, just like it takes energy to ionize H or H2.  The work
function of Pd is 5.6 eV, according to the 74th Ed. of the CRC handbook.

>
>Maybe the H electron's energy just changes a little and pushes one more of
>Pd's electrons into the conduction band....?  In that case, it's still
>essentially an intact H atom inside the Pd lattice.


Well, yes,  the electron and H stay in fixed proportion, and at least one
electron on average must be in the local vicinity, but the actual (QM
waveform) structure involved is the issue.  Different structures have
different behaviors and energy content. I am curious as to what the
internal structure is and how well it is actually known.

Here is a novel thought.  Suppose we diffuse H through a Pd cathode, as
with the external shell of the Arata-Zhang cell.  However, suppose the gas
side, the H ejecting side, is coated with an oxide emitter, say barium and
strontium oxide.   This drops the work function to only 1.5 eV or less.
The question then arises as to how the energy required for H nucleus
ejection is affected on the emitter coated side.  I would assume the
electrostatic field set up between the emitter and the Pd would have an
equal but opposite effect on the nucleus.  The mechanism for the thermionic
emitters is probably not even fully understood, so I doubt "proton
emitters" or "deuteron emitters," whatever they might be, would be
understood without some experimentation.  In any event, it is all relative.
A normal Pd surface is a proton emitter relative to an electron emitter
site.

There is also the question of uniformity of effect upon particles of
differing masses. If mass is important to the emission function, which it
should be due to the intrinsic importance of inirtia to the process, then
the work function should differ between deuterium and protium.

If electron emitter and proton emitter sites could be maintained in a Pd
surface at very close distances, then electron-nucleus recombination could
be had with a free energy gain just external to that surface. This could be
the basis of an "active" or "catalytic" CF site.  Such sites might even be
located internal to some Pd electrodes, and the nonuniformity in the
lattice caused by an emitter structure may be the basis for crack formation
once loading begins.

So, the formula for a "CF" cell might be:

  (1) apply mesh type mask to one surface of thin Pd or Ni

  (2) dope exposed Pd or Ni at about 100 V using barium and strontium
       carbonates in vacuum and in presence of getter

  (3) remove mask

  (4) make the untreated side of the metal a cathode of an electrolytic cell

  (5) exhaust the hydrogen to atmospheric pressure on the gas side
       of the cathode

  (6) recombine the H and O to obtain excess energy


If this concept works then it would be good to find a way to run at very
high temperatures because thermionic emission increases greatly with
temperature:

   J = 1000 A T^2 exp( q W/(k T))

where

   J = electron current in mA/cm^2
   A = constant depending on type of emitter
       [don't have value for Pd but Ni is 26.8 amp/(cm^2 deg^2),
        the value for oxide coated Ni is 0.001 amp/(cm^2 deg^2)]
   T = temp in K
   k = Boltzmann's constant = 1.380x10^-23 J/K
   q = charge on electron = -1.6x10^-19 coulomb


Perhaps instead of electrolysis the loading could take place by using a
hydrogen plasma instead of an electrolyte.

Just more food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 11:16:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05134;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:15:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:15:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124131425.00eefbb8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:14:25 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Vertical instabilities
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"H8NCH2.0.5G1.2NmMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24997
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I don't understand all this fuss over convective instabilities inside the
cell.  In my experience it is relatively easy to insulate the cell well
enough that ~98% of the heat energy released in it has to leave via the
flowing water (or electrolyte).
                           Flow
                             ^
                            | |
           -----------------| |----------------
           |                | |                |
           |   I            | |                | 
           |   N     _______| |________        | 
           |   S    |                  |       |
           |   U    |                  |       |
           |   L    |                  |       |
           |   A    |                  |       |
           |   T    |       CELL       |       |
           |   I    |                  |       |
           |   O    |                  |       |
           |   N    |_______   ________|       | 
           |                | |                |
           |                | |                | 
           |                | |                |
           -----------------| |----------------
                            | |
                            | |
                             ^                     
                            Flow 

In that case, once the system has reached quasi-equilibrium under steady
input power conditions, it does not matter what kind of internal
circulation patterns are going on inside the cell.  Even a Swartz-Rothwell
instability wouldn't seriously affect the steady-state delta-T....<g>



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 11:22:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07153;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:12 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365AF955.1062 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:22:13 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alloys
References: <36581a25.186528138 24.192.1.20>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cRSDA2.0.dl1.iRmMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24998
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 24,1998

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
 
> Does anyone know whether alloys exist that have the same nature as
> chemical compounds? I.e. fixed ratios of one metal to another, with
> the various metal atoms taking up specific positions within the
> crystal lattice.

If you have access to the New York Times November 24, 1998 Science Times
section D, there is an article there that touches upon your question. It
is titled, "New Data Help Explain Crystals That Defy Nature" byu Malcome
W. Browne. If you cannot access it, I can send a copy as an attachment. 

_AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 11:40:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA14521;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:33:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:33:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124133306.00afe8a8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:33:06 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981124091557.00a0e458 pop3.oro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mNnCW2.0.oY3.YemMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/24999
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:16 11/24/98 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
>>I'm still puzzled about the energetics.  H2 going into Pd has been
>>empirically shown to be slightly exothermic....~9000 cal/mole (.39 eV per
>>PdH) is released.  In order for H2 to enter, it must dissociate on the Pd
>>surface first.  That takes ~103,000 cal/mole of H2 (4.5 eV per H2 or 2.25
>>eV per H) so there must be something like 2.64 eV of energy released by the
>>combination of atomic H and Pd.  
>
>According to your numbers, **absorbed** not released.  The disociation is
>endothermic.

Yes it is.  But the 2.64 eV would still have to be released to make things
balance out.  Here's a physicist's tally sheet:

Per H atom entering the Pd:

         -2.25 eV    energy absorbed when H2 dissociates on the surface
         +2.64 eV    energy released when H and Pd get together
       ____________
         +0.39 eV    net observed exotherm when H2 and Pd react.

(My apologies to the chemists in the group who would express the final sum
as a negative number for some inscrutable reason.)

Horace brings up a good point about the work function....so it wouldn't
have to climb all the way out of the -13.6 eV well...but it still seems to
me that each H nucleus will have its own personal electron while inside the
Pd lattice.  I could easily be wrong....:)



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 11:59:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24350;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:57:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:57:40 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b280be925abe [208.228.222.154]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:04:34 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZaTle3.0.Ly5.p-mMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25000
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:33 PM 11/24/98, Scott Little wrote:
[snip]
>
>Horace brings up a good point about the work function....so it wouldn't
>have to climb all the way out of the -13.6 eV well...but it still seems to
>me that each H nucleus will have its own personal electron while inside the
>Pd lattice.  I could easily be wrong....:)
>

This is clearly true on a net basis, because the net charge is zero, or
nearly zero compared to the total charge.  However, things are not stable
inside the lattice due to heat. In an ionic bond (case 1) the conduction
band electrons can exchange, so that is a highly volatile situation.  The
bonding with lattice atoms (case 2) involves temporary or probabilistic
extentions of the metal atom orbitals to include the H nucleus.  This too
is a volatile situation in terms of exactly what electron is paired with
what nucleus.  Some combination of the two (case 3) is also volatile.  The
only ways stable one to one relationships could be formed would be if H
(case 4) or H2 (case 5) formed inside the lattice.  I find it difficult to
believe H forms in interstitial spaces and is also capable of diffusion.
It appears to me H2 is capable of diffusion.  It appears to me offhand the
likely situation would be a combination of cases 5 and 3, i.e. anything but
the atomic state.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 12:01:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25481;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:59:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:59:51 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981124150112.00818d20 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:01:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Vertical instabilities
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124131425.00eefbb8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sbbdE.0.3E6.t0nMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25001
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



   At 01:14 PM 11/24/98 -0600, little eden.com wrote:
>I don't understand all this fuss over convective instabilities inside the
>cell.  In my experience it is relatively easy to insulate the cell well
>enough that ~98% of the heat energy released in it has to leave via the
>flowing water (or electrolyte).


  No. That is not the issue, nor is it a convective instability.

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


>                           Flow
>                             ^
>                            | |
>           -----------------| |----------------
>           |                | |                |
>           |   I            | |                | 
>           |   N     _______| |________        | 
>           |   S    |                  |       |
>           |   U    |                  |       |
>           |   L    |                  |       |
>           |   A    |                  |       |
>           |   T    |       CELL       |       |
>           |   I    |                  |       |
>           |   O    |                  |       |
>           |   N    |_______   ________|       | 
>           |                | |                |
>           |                | |                | 
>           |                | |                |
>           -----------------| |----------------
>                            | |
>                            | |
>                             ^                     
>                            Flow 
>
>In that case, once the system has reached quasi-equilibrium under steady
>input power conditions, it does not matter what kind of internal
>circulation patterns are going on inside the cell.  Even a Swartz-Rothwell
>instability wouldn't seriously affect the steady-state delta-T....<g>
>c, 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)


  Actually, it does matter.  Hot water rises.  Perhaps
The Little-Earthtech analysis might consider that if there
is a distribution of water temperature, then there will be
redistribution accordingly.  Even in that quasi-steady-state,
there would be a delta-T without necessarily a power source.
It is a consequence of flawed vertical flow calorimetry.

  Try: Chandrasekhar, S., "Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic 
Stability", Clarendon Press, Oxford, 9-75 (1961), and
Melcher, J., "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, 
Cambridge, 10.13-10.18 (1981).

  Have good day.
   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 12:40:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07971;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:39:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:39:11 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b280c8e0c67a [208.228.222.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:46:06 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vkil23.0.Iy1.lbnMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25002
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The work function of Pd is 5.6 eV, according to the 74th Ed. of the CRC
handbook.  There is, of course, no work function published there for
protons or deuterons, but such a work function must also exist. Let's
assume it is also 5.6 eV.  The work function has to do with the strength of
the induce charge on the metal surface in proximity to the escaping
(approaching) ion, so it is resonable to assume the work function, for
similarly charged particles would be similar.  This then accounts for a
total of about 11.2 eV of your missing energy Scott.  We have a balnce of
-13.6 eV + 11.2 eV = 2.4 eV to deal with.  Considering the energies you
were using:

         -2.25 eV    energy absorbed when H2 dissociates on the surface
         +2.64 eV    energy released when H and Pd get together
       ____________
         +0.39 eV    net observed exotherm when H2 and Pd react.

we seem to be very much in the ball park.

I wrote:

  (2) dope exposed Pd or Ni at about 100 V using barium and strontium
       carbonates in vacuum and in presence of getter

That should say "CO2 getter" instead of "getter".

I wrote:

   J = 1000 A T^2 exp( q W/(k T))

where

   J = electron current in mA/cm^2
   A = constant depending on type of emitter
       [don't have value for Pd but Ni is 26.8 amp/(cm^2 deg^2),
        the value for oxide coated Ni is 0.001 amp/(cm^2 deg^2)]
   T = temp in K
   k = Boltzmann's constant = 1.380x10^-23 J/K
   q = charge on electron = -1.6x10^-19 coulomb

I omitted:

   W = work function of emitter, in electron-volts


Perhaps instead of electrolysis the loading could take place by using a
hydrogen plasma instead of an electrolyte.

Just more food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 14:17:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15375;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:15:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:15:34 -0800
From: SciBorg8 aol.com
Message-ID: <ee131bc0.365b2d4a aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:03:54 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: FE Validation
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Resent-Message-ID: <"oZp0-1.0.0m3.30pMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25003
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I know the topic of validating free energy devices has been talked about on
and off, but I was wondering about details in the topic. What are the steps in
validating a fe device? Are there several ways to go about doing it? etc.
Thanks

Eric

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 14:38:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23813;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:36:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:36:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981124143548.00a16bd4 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: Tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:36:44 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Light Neutrons from Electron Deuteron Collisions? 
  Experiment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5N3jU.0.yp5.5KpMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25004
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Read up on hazardous materials warnings on boron compounds before ordering
or experimenting with any of them.  I bought one form a while back and have
never opened it due to the danger.  really nasty stuff in many forms,
though I didn't look it up for B2D6

Ross Tessien

At 06:39 PM 11/24/98, you wrote:
>At 23.44 23/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>To: Vortex
>>
>>Electron bombardment of Lithium Borodeuteride
>>(LiBD4) made by:
>>
>>2 LiD + B2D6 ---> 2 LiBD4 (Mp 275 C)
>>
>>If the Light Neutrons are created, the Boron 10
>>in the LiBD4 should be fissioned:
>>
>>n + Boron 10 --->  He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev.
>>
>>Regards,    Frederick
>>
>    Dear Frederick,
>  have you some detailed information on this experiment generating neutrons?
>  May you inform in detail? Have you some material to be sended by e-mail(
>   .Doc version)?. As you may know,I am very interested.
>                                                        Best regards
>                                                            Elio Conte
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 14:38:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24038;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:37:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:37:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981124163751.009acc60 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:37:51 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Vertical instabilities
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124150112.00818d20 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981124131425.00eefbb8 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"K72WA2.0.St5.YKpMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25005
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 03:01 PM 11/24/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>Even in that quasi-steady-state,
>there would be a delta-T without necessarily a power source.

Haw! Good one, Mitchell.


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 Nov 24 14:41:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09253;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:39:19 -0800 (PST)
From: SciBorg8 aol.com
Message-ID: <10ac409a.365b3089 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:17:45 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Prototype Plans, Analysis
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Resent-Message-ID: <"R8YEb3.0.VG2.LMpMs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25006
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was wondering if any one knew of any resources as to how plans for a
prototype could be analyzed? Analysis for basic functionality. This is coming
from the perspective of an amateur. 

And how do you address having un-patented concepts reviewed for integrity? I'm
sure this is something of an issue. 

I was thinking maybe there were some type of engineering services out there
somewhere. A service where you send them your plans and they review them,
analyze, etc. Any and all ideas would be helpful. Thanks

Eric 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 14:47:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29512;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:46:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:46:26 -0800
Message-Id: <199811242243.RAA10325 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: FE Validation
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:48:12 -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: <"igy4Y3.0.-C7.-SpMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25007
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> 
> I know the topic of validating free energy devices has been talked about
on
> and off, but I was wondering about details in the topic. What are the
steps in
> validating a fe device? Are there several ways to go about doing it? etc.
> Thanks
> 
> Eric
> 
Well, that all depends on what it is and how powerful it is and how much
energy above what it is ordinarily expected to produce it is producing and
the forms of energy are that are to be considered and in what sort of
conditions it is expected to be producing this excess energy, etc.

On the face of it, it seems pretty simple (which is usually an incorrect
perception).

What kind of device are you considering testing?

Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 15:16:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05529;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:15:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:15:15 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:21:18 -0500
Message-ID: <01be1801$23677810$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: <"bWfC.0.FM1.2upMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25008
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace,
I think that you may be using an interpretation of
"work function" that is similar to an incorrect one
on which I based several non functional OU ideas.
The work function describes the energy required to
obtain electron emission from the metal surface. It
does not specify the net energy change involved in 
traversing the work function barrier. Look at it as 
a hill, the electron requires a work function of
energy to reach the top, but this does not say
anything about the energy level after coming down
on the other side. 
The contact potential describes the energy difference
in moving between two metals. The work function describes
how much energy it takes to get an electron over the
barrier and into vacuum, but not the energy level
it will have when it reaches the vacuum at a distance
from the metal surface.
Please correct me if I am wrong about this, as there would
indeed be OU possibilities, work function differences are
much larger than contact potential differences.
-
Regards,
George Holz  - george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 16:30:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA25782;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:27:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:27:21 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:27:18 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981124154352.24722A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cC46-3.0.mI6.fxqMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25009
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>   That is why horizontal flow calorimeters or static calorimetric
> systems may be more accurate the vertical flow systems
> in relatively low flow conditions.

Mitch, does enough information about the geometry of the Powergen setup
exist that you can create a crude graph of "percentage false excess heat 
versus flow rate" ?

Obviously we could argue that such a graph would not be a perfect
match for the real
device.  But even if it was off by an order of magnitude or two, it might
still be convincing.  If the range of actual flow rates completely
overlaps with a calculated estimate of "problem" flow rates, then it
throws doubt on Jed's report.  Or if the real flow rates are many orders
of magnitude higher than the regime where artifacts become significant,
then Jed is vindicated.  Even if there is partial overlap (and so
everyone keeps arguing forever), at least we would KNOW that numerical
estimates cannot be used to decide the issue.

A candle sometimes warms a spot the ceiling, but if there's a tornado in
the room, the warm spot will not develop.  Was the CETI device like a
tornado?  Or not?

This controversy has gone on for so long that our time would have been
better spent in building an inert copy of the Powergen CETI device, and
then examining its behavior.  You must agree that unless we have numerical
predictions made for that device, these discussions are little else but
collisions of opinions, and are guaranteed to be unending. 

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 17:51:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18929;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:47:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:47:06 -0800
Message-ID: <365B619F.6E3C earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:47:11 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: McKubre evidence for recombination artifact   11.24.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZtovR3.0.hd4.O6sMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25010
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Subject: Evidence for the 'Shanahan artifact'
  Date:  Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:01 -0400 (EDT)
  From:  Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Hello Rich,
     
I hope I am not being premature but I believe I have some exciting 
news.  I have just obtained a loaner copy of Dr. McKubre's recent 
report, and I believe it has supporting evidence inside it that        
shows the effect that Dr. Storms and I have been debating.  
     
Dr. McKubre has supplied all of his data on a CD (Wonderful!), and     
on top of that he has recorded recombiner catalyst temperature         
during closed cell operations!
     
Some tidbits regarding his run "M1" (one of two closed cell runs that 
shows a clear excess heat signal).  His calorimeter is supposed to be 
about 99% efficient.  The run is listed as having a maximum excess 
heat of 100 mW, but in Figure 3-69a you can also see spikes up above 
120 mW or so (one even is cut off by the graph maximum of 140 mW).  The 
recombiner temp runs from 110-120C or so, the electrolyte shows 30-50C 
or so.  During non-excess heat periods, a quick check shows the 
recombiner T to vary by about 0.2C.  
     
BUT, during the excess heat event of March 13 and 14, 1994, the 
recombiner delta T is 2.0C!  Ploting the inverted recombiner temp and 
visually comparing it to the excess heat signal, I believe I can see a 
rough correlation between the dips in recombiner temp and the peaks in 
the excess heat signal!  This is essentially what I suggested should 
occur if the heat was moving from the recombiner to the cathode.  (The 
electrolyte temperature at first look doesn't correlate to recombiner, 
but is driven by input power I think, but there might be a small 
residual that could be correlated.)  The input current is about 2A, 
which gives 3W to play with in my model, more than enough to produce 
100 or 140 mW I hope.
     
What is equally interesting is that these two excess heat producing 
runs were achieved with specially-ordered Pd, of a very high purity.  
In the context of my surface chemical explanation of the phenomenon, 
this could well indicate that normal bulk impurities hamper the 
formation of active sites (which isn't too much different from the CF 
explanation anyway).
     
Dr. McKubre is to be applauded for finding a way to put all his data 
out for independent analysis.  We all should do as he does.
     
As this is just my first pass though the 200 Mbytes of data, I do 
reserve the right to recant my implications above if I can be shown 
the 'error of my ways'.  There are more excess heat signals to be 
examined in the M1 run, and I need to look at the non-excess periods 
in more detail.  I may have noted a less strong effect during the 
'non-excess' heat periods (needs to be checked, it's pretty 
small).  In addition, there is the M4 run, another excess-heat 
producer that I need to look at.  
     
In fact if anyone else has examined this data and has recommendations 
as to what to look at, I would certainly be willing to listen, as I 
have this report for only a short time (although I do intend to order 
my own copy).  
     
Happy Holidays!
     
Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 17:57:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22317;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:55:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:55:40 -0800
Message-ID: <365B5EB7.132 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:34:47 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact  11.24.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RO48s2.0.SS5.QEsMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25011
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.19.98
  Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:44 -0400 (EDT)
  From:   Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Ed Storms:
> Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

Your first few comments seemed to imply my surface chemistry model was 
somehow unable to handle changing apparent excess heats.  I am sure that 
is incorrect.  Specifically you asked:

> Can you relate your process to the achieved composition?

If you give me the exact mechanism and the relevant rate constants, of
course.  If you can't, then you and I are in the same boat with our
'theories'.  As I said before, for my explanation of closed cell
behavior to be acceptable, I require a difference in heat collection
efficiencies to be present in some area of the cell, and I require the
presence of surface sites for recombination.

{snip}
> The figures you quote are for static thermal conductivity.  However,
> most conduction in a gas is caused by thermal convection.  Anyone who
> has used hydrogen knows that this gas is very effectively in cooling an
> object, much better than nitrogen for example. Convection in a gas is
> much e
asier to achieve than in a liquid because of the vast difference
> in viscosity.

And since I listed the thermal conductivity of N2, I also realize it is
less effective than D2, but also note D2 is less effective that Teflon
or water. I agree that for effective cooling in the gas phase, more than
static conduction is required.  Again, the situation is similar to the
liquid, where stirring is required to get good total thermal
conductivity.

While establishing convection in the gas phase may be easy, that does
not establish that avoiding gradients is.  Wouldn't the major convection
current be established between the hottest and coolest spot, over the
shortest (or most thermally conductive) path?  I would guess that
represents a vertical flow to the electrolyte, leaving the exterior of
the gas space to establish a significant stagnant zone.  Thus unless
your gas phase temp measurement was in that zone, I wouldn't expect to
see much of a signal.  Just speculation on my part of course, it depends
greatly on cell design.

{snip}
> The recombiner surface is designed to reject liquid water.  The gas
> forms water and this water immediately balls up and runs off the
> surface. At high power, the surface is sufficiently hot to cause some
> vaporization. This vapor subsequently condenses on the cooler Pyrex
> container and the water runs into the electrolyte. If you will consult
> several of my papers, you will see a drawing of the design. Great effort
> is taken to keep the electrolyte from splashing on to the recombiner
> because this will quickly lead to deactivation.

Interesting, so the recombiner is potentially a hot spot, and there is
no appreciable cooling via liquid droplets.

{snip}
> True, but a lot is known and available for your study which casts
> considerable doubt on your explanation, not the least of which is that
> excess power is detected in calorimeters which are completely
> insensitive to the location of produced power or which used external
> recombination.

See below please.

{snip}
> As I discuss below, you need to show that the location of heat
> production can change by a sufficient amount and that this change can
> change the measured delta T by a sufficient amount. I do not believe you
> can show an effect of sufficient magnitude.
> 

Ummm...that was sort of my whole point.  I established a simple
mathematical model of the situation, and showed it could easily explain
your results.  Then, I proposed what I thought was a realistic chemical
picture to qualitatively describe how the required shift mught occur.

{snip}
> Of course, this is an easy assumption to make.  However, if I had seen a
> correlation between external activity and previous excess energy
> production, your argument would have been strengthened.  The fact that I
> have not seen this correlation may not shoot down your argument, but it
> does not help either.

So we end up in de facto agreement.  The observations on loaded Pd in
the air are probably not relevant.

{snip}
> Yes, the stirring would allow some oxygen to reach the cathode. 
> However, the cathode is contained within a structure created by the
> anode.  Mixing within the structure is therefore reduced.  Mixing
> outside of that structure carries the oxygen away from the cathode.  

So, half the generated oxygen is formed inside a non-mixed ( or less- 
well-mixed) zone?  Now I'm getting confused...

> It
> helps to see the diagrams which have been published or, better yet, see
> the apparatus. Debating from imagined, abstract ideas is not very
> useful.
>  

My debates are based on your '93 publication, as well as others in the
CF arena.  If the drawings and descriptions are accurate, I doubt the
utility of a trip to your lab just to see the cell.  If the drawings are
not accurate, why were they published?  

If the argument is abstract, the conclusions from it are also, and must
then be applied to reality by imposing whatever restricitions are
present.  I feel my picture of cell function is based in both abstract
and real considerations.

{snip}
> The calibration constant is a conventional concept which is used to
> compare various conditions. We can either say the constant changes or we
> can say the average delta T changes.  Both are equivalent.  

Hmmm...no, I disagree.  The calibration constant is a constant.  By
definition, it doesn't change.  You can of course redetermine a new
calibration 'constant' under a different set of conditions, but in
practice, you use the calibration constant as a constant, and watch the
temperature changes.

> If I
> understand your view, you are saying that changes in the location of
> heat production change the measured average temperature in such a way
> that this change, when multiplied by the previously measured calibration
> constant, appears to indicate production of excess energy. 
> 

That is the essence of it, within the context of a fundamental
difference in heat collection efficiencies within different arbitrary
regions in the cell.

{snip}
> These calorimeter types do not care where in the device the energy is
> made. 

No, I disagree.  No calorimeter is perfect.  My 'effect' could be active
in any.  As you note elsewhere, the critical determination is one of
magnitudes.

> Of course, a purest who is looking for microwatts will raise an
> objection.  However, for all practical purposes when measurements are in
> the milliwatt region, this statement generally applies. 

My 'effect' suggests Watt signals are possible in poorly designed 
calorimeters.  In a 'perfect' one, no excess heat signal would arise
from this mechanism.  Anything in between is possible, but I substituted
some values I though reasonable into the equation and got hundreds of 
milliwatts.  I think this doesn't require a purist to be concerned
about.

> The flow-type measures the energy captured by flowing water.  If the
> calorimeter is well insulated, essentially all of the heat produc
ed
> anywhere within the device ends up in the water.  Of course a little is
> lost through the leads but this is minimized by placing the device in an
> environment whose temperature is equal to the interior temperature.  

> A double-wall isoparibolic device takes the heat from the cell, averages
> the temperature within a fluid or piece of metal, and then measures the
> temperature difference across a second thermal barrier.  As a result,
> the temperature uncertainty across the important thermal barrier is
> eliminated. 
> 
> A Seebeck calorimeter surrounds the sample by paths through which heat
> can leave and each one of these paths develops a voltage proportional to
> the amount of heat leaving through that path.  The voltages are summed
> and, therefore, represent the total amount of heat, regardless of its
> source.   

Note: {ad hominem snip}  Tsk, tsk.

Irregardless, none of these calorimeters is perfect, and all have
potential heat losses, which is exactly what the model I 
propose needs to function.  I will grant you this, in theory, these
calorimeters should be less suceptible to my 'effect', particularly if
they are designed to collect as mush of the output heat as possible.  My
overview of the field suggested long ago that as the quality of the
calorimeter increased, the magnitude of the effect went down, which is
exactly what my model would predict.

{snip}
> This equation is not correct.  Energy = (calibration constant) * delta 
> This is the primary measurement.  Excess = Energy change from a base
> line.  This base line is either obtained from a calibration or from the
> previous behavior of the sample while being electrolyzed. For the base
> line to change, a change in measured delta T across the barrier must
> occur. A number of gradients exist within the cell which are normally
> constant, hence their presence is not seen as excess.  

Umm...you have apparently forgotten my model.  It fits yours up to the 
point where you stop.  In summary again:

Hout == Hin :definition
Ho == kc*Hc : definition, where Hc is the measured heat out and kc is
the calibration constant 

My calibration constant should be related to your calibration constant
via some simple calculations relating the system delta T to heat.  

You have shown that for a calibration pulse located in the electrolyte,
kc doesn't change much over the data span.

Now, partition the cell into two arbitrary parts containing fractions 1 
and 2 of the total cell heat (this is totally arbitrary and purely 
theoretical),

Ho = H1 + H2

Each partition will have a capture efficiency.  In a perfect cell they
are equal, but in reality they probably aren't.  Thus

Hc = k1*H1 + k2*H2

So

Ho = kc*(k1*H1 + k2*H2)

This is your steady state condition mentioned above.  Note that by
definition,
Ho = H1 + H2.

Now, move a quantitiy of heat from one partition to the other, call it
X.
The new measured heat out is:

Hc' = k1*(H1-X) + k2*(H2+X)

but  now the new calculated cell total heat (Ho') is:

Ho' = kc*Hc' = kc*H1 + kc*H2 + kc*k1*X - kc*k2*X
     Ho' = kc*(H1 + H2) + X * kc * (k1-k2)
     Ho'  =  Ho  +  X*kc*(k1-k2)

So, the _excess heat_ is the second term in my model.  I submit that my
equation is correct.  I agree you should be able to see the change in
heat via a delta T, _assuming_ the X is significant enough to show up. 
The interesting thing about my model is that as the calorimeter gets
less efficient overall, the value of X can be multiplied by a larger and 
larger number since kc will be >1 and k1-k2 can get larger as the
overall efficiency decreases.

> Only if these
> gradients change can the apparent excess be affected.  

Agreed, that is the basis of my model.

> This change is a
> secondary effect superimposed on the primary gradient.  

Watts of signal is a 'secondary' effect?

>The issue is
> whether this change can produce your proposed effect.

Agreed, and it is a function of calorimeter design.  The more perfect
you get, the less the apparent excess heat signal.

{snip}
> You miss the point.  If you take an average while several variables are
> changing, it is impossible to know what the average means.  Does your
> average reflect the effect of time or does it reflect the effect of
> current?

You miss _my_ point.  I showed 'my' average increases with increasing 
current, and posited an explanation.  All I did was reinterpret your
data
to show how my effect could be appearing.

{snip}
> The observations, not speculations, show that the fraction of gas
> recombined at the cathode increases as the current is reduced.  Of
> course, the amount of heat represented by this recombination also
> decreases. 

Hmmm...only given a fixed amount of recombination at the cathode.  I
don't see why the absolute amount of recombination can't vary.  
Particularly when the limiting reagent in the reaction is the putative
(and exceedingly difficult to obtain) catalytic sites.

> Your m
odel proposes the opposite, that the fraction of gas
> recombined at the cathode increases as the current is increased.

Not quite...you are missing one of the main points.

> Otherwise you can not account for the proposed increased excess energy
> as current is increased.

Yes, I can.  The excess energy comes from an abrubt change in fraction 
recombination at the cathode.  In my model, this produces an 'excess
heat' signal via the basic thermodynamics I outline above.  In your
model, no such shift can occur, therefore the excess heat signal must be
CANR.  What the reality is is the issue.

> But the observed excess does not remain constant at 1 W, as in your
> example. 

My numeric example was to illustrate a point.  What good can it be to 
postulate a mechanism that is incapable of fitting the facts?  Please
give me enough credit to grant me that I have a model that is apparently 
capable of explaining the data that is available to me.

> You must assume that the amount of recombina
tion increases and
> its location shifts so as to produce an apparent excess.

The _total_ amount of recombination does not change at all.  A portion
of the activity _does_ shift from point "A" to point "B" in my model. 
That shift can produce an excess heat signal if it is a shift from one 
efficiency region of a calorimeter to another.

{snip}
> This effect occurs only below very low currents and is essentially zero
> at the cathode for currents over about 0.5A. Thus, the effect occurs
> only when the amount of heat involved in the relocation process is
> small.
> 

I'm losing track of what we are talking about here.  I was illustrating
why I believed my comment in my last message that you seemed to think
was incredible.  

I guess I feel that you are placing severe restrictions on where, when,
and how much recombination occurs.  The basis of my point is that a
shift in the recombination pattern can produce an apparent excess heat
signal of the magnitude of observed excess heat signals.  I don't
understand why you think such a shift can not occur, it easily explains
the observations.  That should raise serious concerns.

{snip}
> Before I discuss your clearly stated idea, let me summarize what I
> understand you to propose.
> 
> You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
> catalytic activity at the cathode.  This change causes the production of
> recombination heat to move from the recombiner, located in the gas
> space, to the cathode surface located in the liquid.  This change in
> location causes a change in the measured internal average temperature,
> which is misinterpreted as excess energy.

This is a subset of my proposal, yes.  I would state my proposal as a 
multi-level one.  The first and most fundamental level is the
mathematics, which shows that if different heat capture efficiency
regions exist in a calorimeter, then an apparent excess heat signal can
arise by a shift in internal heat distribution.  This is a very general
statement, particularly since in the real world, any calorimeter is
guaranteeded to have some possibility of this.  The actual need is to
determine experimentally to what extent a given calorimeter shows this
problem.

The next level is an attempt to point to a specific feature of closed
cell calorimeters that would lend itself to fitting the math model I
outline.  In fact, the partitioning between gas and liquid is arbitrary
and may not even be the best way to do it.  Another way might be where
H1 is the heat lost via penetrations, with H2 being all the rest of the
heat.  So if something causes the heat flow out the loss pathways to
change, then there might well be an apparent excess heat signal.

Another level of this discussion has been whether or not and where 
temperature gradients might exist in a closed cell.  I am still not sure
that is a really relevant discussion.  I do believe the 'shift' I 
propose would induce a change in the cell's steady state, but whether
the cell's mixing processes can evenly distribute this change is a very
interesting question.

So, your comments above focus on one aspect of my multi-aspect proposal.

{snip}
> The process you describe has merit as a general principle.  However, the
> issue is one of magnitude.  
> 1. Will the catalytic activity of the cathode increase by a sufficient
> amount? 
> 2. Will sufficient oxygen diffuse through the liquid to make the
> proposed recombination possible? 
> 3. Will the gas and fluid temperatures change by an amount sufficient to
> introduce an error that can account for the observed excess energy?  
> 

Thanks! And I agree, the issue is magnitudes!

> The success of your process hinges on answers to these questions. 
> 
> I will try to address each.
> 
> 1. Mel Miles studied this effect using open cells and found that
> recombination at the cathode did not increase and was not in any way
> related to heat production.  

"Failure to observe an effect does not prove it isn't  there."  The 
effect not observed is whatever causes the recombination probability at 
the electrode to increase at some point.  Note  that this 'effect' is in 
fact the same thing that has been called 'cold fusion' and 'chemically 
assisted nuclear reactions'.  Not observing the effect would certainly 
produce the results you attribute to Miles.

>   Also, I find no evidence for increased
> catalytic activity in air after a study, except in a few cases.  You
> suggest the catalytic activity could have been destroyed upon exposure
> to air.  True, but this obviously does not always happen.  While this
> experience does not eliminate your suggestion, it certainly weakens it.
> 

It only weakens it if you assume that there should be no significant
change in the surface state upon moving from electrolyte to air.  I
don't accept that, so I feel the air reactivity of Pd to be irrelevant.

> 2. In order for the proposed increased catalytic activity to have any
> effect, oxygen has to diffuse to
 the cathode.  Most of the oxygen moves
> quickly to the surface of the electrolyte as bubbles and, therefore, is
> unavailable to the cathode.  (Note more detail in the previous comment
> above) Many small bubbles circulate within the fluid and some small
> fraction of these will certainly contact the cathode.  For recombination
> to occur, the bubbles would have to avoid the hydrogen bubbles being
> generated and their contents would have to be absorbed on the surface. 
> While I can not calculate the expected arrival rate of oxygen, you can
> see that this would be a relative slow process and that it is the rate
> determining step in the recombination process. Dissolved oxygen would
> have an even slower arrival rate.  

I personally think this is difficult to say.  You have outlined several
problems with getting O2 to the electrode via bubbles, but I would refer
you to the study by Jones and Hansen where they studied this.  The net
conclusion from their work in my mind was to establish that under the
correct conditions, significant oxygen can be delivered to the
electrode. Some of your prior messages seemed to indicate rapid radial
mixing, others seemed to discount that.  But if you are mixing well,
then lots of O2 should see the electrode.

> Therefore, no matter how catalytic
> the Pd becomes, there is a limiting rate of recombination.  Of course,
> we can dance around this mechanism all day but in the end, only a small
> fraction of the oxygen is available.

As you said above, it is a question of magnitude.  My point of view is
that a.) apparent excess heat is observed and b) a math model is extant
that can explain this.  I conclude from this that there must have been 
adequate O2 at the electrode to produce the signal.  What I am looking
for is conclusive evidence that this is not so, both from the point of 
view of the model, and the proposed chemistry.  

> 3. The gas temperature, based on measurement, is very close to the
> liquid temperature when I have made su
ch measurements.  Of course, I
> have not measured all cell configurations.  Therefore, I can not say for
> sure that all cells have this behavior.  However, I try to design the
> cell to minimize the temperature gradient within the gas.   

Good!  What evidence do you have that this is true during an 'excess
heat' event?

>Different
> designs have given similar results.  

Where has anyone confirmed the temperature uniformity of the cell's gas 
phase during an 'excess heat' event?

> Therefore, the effect is not design
> dependent. 

Without studies of temperature distributions within the gas phase, I 
feel this statement is unjustified.

> Let's assume that the power being deposited at the recombiner decreased
> by 10%.  What change would be produced in the temperature of the gas
> space and the electrolyte? At full power, when the recombination power
> is about 4 watts,  the gas is found to be about a +0.5� hotter than the
> liquid.  I might expect this 10% change to cause the
 gas temperature to
> decrease by about a 0.05�.  This temperature change would cause the
> amount of heat leaving through the wall in contact with the gas to
> decrease.  At the same time, the temperature of the fluid would
> increase.  This increase would be smaller than the change in gas
> temperature because the wall area in contact with the liquid is about
> three times larger than that in contact with the gas.  This being the
> case, the additional energy leaving the fluid would require a smaller
> temperature difference to compensate for the reduction in loss through
> the gas-contact wall.  A change of +0.02� would be a reasonable
> estimation. Because it is the temperature of the fluid which is used to
> calculate the produced energy, this increase would be interpreted as an
> increase in produced power. This change in temperature would introduce
> an error of about 80 mW in the my typical calorimeter.  (0.02� *
> 4W/degree).  The LANL calorimeter produced a maximum excess of 5.5 W
> 
before the recombiner failed.  Other devices of mine have produced up to
> 4 watts. Therefore, such a temperature error can not explain the
> excess.  Of course, one can assume a larger temperature change, but the
> more the error, the harder it is to justify.   I can see no way to
> explain 4-5 watts!
> 

Here you are speculating as to possible magnitudes, which is fine, but 
_my_ speculations suggest _your_ speculations are irrelevant.  I wonder
who is most correct?  By the way, I have already suggested a way to
explain 4-5 watts.

> If a change in the location of power production is a possible
> explanation, this can be tested by introducing power directly into the
> fluid by a heater in the absence of electrolysis.  In this way, no heat
> would be introduced into the gas by the recombiner.  If this test is
> made while the fluid is mechanically stirred, to eliminate fluid
> gradients, the calibration constant is found to be nearly identical to
> that obtained from a calibration using e
lectrolysis.  Therefore, the
> amount of power being dissipated into the gas by the recombiner has no
> effect on the measurements.  This test has been made using all of my
> calorimeter designs.  While there is a slight difference, caused partly
> by residual gradients, differences in the stagnate layer, and
> differences in where the voltage is measured, the amount of difference
> can not explain the magnitude of the observed excess energy.  

But Ed, you have not measured the temperature distribution in the gas
phase nearly as well as you have done in the liquid.  There, you used
two thermistors, and you varied stirring and electrolysis power.  You
only measured T at one point in the gas, and you have not stirred the
gas space either.  This leaves open the possibility that you had the bad
luck to position your thermistor at the worst possible spot for noting
the kind of behavior I am proposing.  

> Since this
> interest has developed, I am planning to publish this data as part of
> t
he description of my dual calorimeter and its use in measuring excess
> energy produced by thin films.  You will just have to be patient for the
> details.

That's fine, I am patient I believe.  Please make sure you include
physical dimensions in your experimental descriptions.  It would help. 
If you like send pre/reprints to the address below.  (Also, I don't get
IE, if you have a reprint of your article, I would appreciate one.)

> I would like to make a personal observation.  Anyone attempting to
> explain the observations of excess energy at this time will have a hard
> time. Granted, many different explanations can be proposed, but all of
> these have now been considered by people still in the field. 

If my proposal had been considered, and since you give it merit in your
comments above, why do we have such difficulty answering whether there
are temperature gradients in the gas phase.  The old saw "Cite your
references" is appropriate here.

>  We are neither fools nor incompetent hobbyists. 

Which is not what I am suggesting.  I have an overriding "Truth" that I 
myself prove daily, namely "All human beings can err."  One of the most 
common errors is to overlook something.  This is why scientists publish.
They present their data and theories, and then hope someone can shoot
holes in it.  That seems to be the only way to get at the truth about
how Nature works.  In professional science the saying is "Your worst
critic is your best friend."  Unfortunately human nature usually 
intervenes and scientists show their human side by concluding their
worst critic is their enemy.  Sometimes this even happens, which just
serves to make it harder to find our best approximation of the "Truth".

>Early in the field such
> suggestions were valuable.  The field has grown, and the effect has been
> seen so many different ways that it is almost impossible to suggest
> rational errors which have not already been considered. 

Ed, this statement is simply not true, as history as shown many times.

>I have no
> problem with someone wanting to be educated about the field and, in this
> process, raise questions which challenge the claims and need to be
> answered.  However, a person should not presume to find a fatal flaw and
> use this presumption to reject all of the observations.
> 

I admit to being skeptical about CF or CANR or sonofusion or ..., but I 
_have_ looked at most of these in detail, and in general I find them 
wanting.  Each different subdivision of the field has its problems, and 
sometimes they are quite different.  The basic premise of every
scientist should be that every different experimental setup is subjeat
to a different set of errors and the extent those errors appear.  

To imply that I reject "all of the observations" because of "a fatal
flaw" denigrates the time and effort I have spent studying this arena. 
So far, in those areas I have studied I have found many different "fatal
flaws", some not even present in other systems, and so far
 I haven't been convinced of the 'nuclear' explanation of the FPH
effect. 

Show me the hard data in a form I can evalute independently, and you can 
change my mind.

Happy Holidays to all those following this discussion!

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}
Savannah River Technology Center
Bldg. 232-H
Aiken, SC  29808

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 18:25:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01025;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:23:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:23:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b281108a4815 [208.228.222.204]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:30:50 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"LNdqq.0.tF.xesMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25012
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:21 PM 11/24/98, George Holz wrote:
>Horace,
>I think that you may be using an interpretation of
>"work function" that is similar to an incorrect one
>on which I based several non functional OU ideas.


It could well be my understanding of work function is all wrong.

>The work function describes the energy required to
>obtain electron emission from the metal surface.


That is correct.  It also describes the energy gained by an electron
approaching a  neutral metal surface.  An opposing charge is induced on the
opposing surface which accelerates the approaching charge.  In my opinion,
the work function, because it is so sensitive to timing, is largely
dependant upon the conductivity of the metal and the inirtia of the
particle approaching (departing).


>It
>does not specify the net energy change involved in
>traversing the work function barrier.

Well I think it does in a sense.  The ejected electron is slowed down by
the opposing unneutralized charge it leaves behind.  Because ejected
electrons tend to come from the top end of the energy distribuion curve,
the electrode is cooled by their departure.  Going the other way, the
induced charge accelerates the electron into the electrode, thus heating it
more.


>Look at it as
>a hill, the electron requires a work function of
>energy to reach the top, but this does not say
>anything about the energy level after coming down
>on the other side.


Actually, going into the electrode the electron drops into a valley and
creates heat, thereby placing itself into a lower energy state, it is down
in a potential energy valley, but has increased kinetic energy to spread
around as heat.   Going out of an electrode takes energy to raise it back
to the higher energy state.


>The contact potential describes the energy difference
>in moving between two metals. The work function describes
>how much energy it takes to get an electron over the
>barrier and into vacuum, but not the energy level
>it will have when it reaches the vacuum at a distance
>from the metal surface.


Yes, that's right.  It is the minimum escape energy.  Lots of electrons
don't make it.  In a vacuum, those that don't make it and fall back create
a cloud of electrons near a cathode, called the space charge, which is much
denser close to the electrode.


>Please correct me if I am wrong about this, as there would
>indeed be OU possibilities, work function differences are
>much larger than contact potential differences.

I think you are wrong about this, per the above, but I am no expert.  Am
looking for corrections myself.  8^)

Gee, there must be something wrong.  If what I wrote above is correct, then
a purely electronic device should work.  Suppose you have a stack of heated
plates separated by a vacuum and coated on one side but not on the other.
Let ### denote the coated side, === the uncoated side.

   ===============------------( - )
   ###############

   ===============
   ###############

   ===============
   ###############

   ===============
   ###############

   ===============
   ###############

   ===============
   ===============------------( + )


Bleeder resistors could maintain the potential defference.  If there is a
potential difference of say 10 volts between plates, a 5 eV work function
on the uncoated side, and a 1 eV work function on the coated side then
electrons coming into a plate gains 15 eV.  Leaving the plate takes 11 eV,
so a net of 4 eV is gained at each stage.  The above device would show a
gain of 20 eV total per electron, with an expenditure of 50 eV, so should
have a COP of 1.4.  Something must be wrong with this picture. I'm really
busy now so don't have time to look at this further right now.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 18:26:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01986;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:25:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:25:34 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:25:28 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: request for comments: new vortex-L rules
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981124133211.10951B-100000 eskimo.com>
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 SAA01968
Resent-Message-ID: <"RE9iv2.0.yU.UgsMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25013
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Below are my efforts at updating the rules.  Unless other people have
suggestions, these will "become law".

   1. FLAMEWARS ARE FORBIDDEN   
   2. NO "SKEPTICAL" DISPARAGEMENT
   3. LIMIT YOUR OFF-TOPIC POSTINGS
   4. ABOLISH SECRECY
   5. WHEN REPLYING, DON�T QUOTE THE MESSAGE
   6. NO CROSSPOSTINGS
   7. MESSAGE SIZE IS LIMITED
   8. NO OUTSIDE ADVERTIZERS
   9. DONATIONS SUPPORT VORTEX-L

1. FLAMEWARS ARE FORBIDDEN.   The tone on Vortex-L should be one of 
  legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
    A)Namecalling, verbal abuse, and obvious personal insults are
      forbidden on Vortex-L.  Confine these to vortexB-L, where there are
      no rules. Subscribers who disregard rule no. 1 will be moved to
      vortexB-L and blocked from vortex-L.
    B)To suppress flamewars, REPLIES to insults are banned here.  If
      someone on Vortex-L insults you, please swallow your wounded pride
      and DEAL WITH IT VIA PRIVATE EMAIL.  If you require a large audience
      for your display of retaliation, please do it elsewhere.

2. "SKEPTICAL" DISPARAGEMENT OF UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR CONCEPTS IS FORBIDDEN.
   Vortex-L is a tilted playing field.  We are 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 Daniel Drasin, on
   the CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE page.) 

3. LIMIT YOUR OFF-TOPIC POSTINGS. If you wish to start extremely off-topic
   discussions, please feel free to exchange initial messages on vortex-L,
   but move the discussion to vortexB-L immediately.  It is also
   proper etiquette to mark your message with [OFF TOPIC] in the subject
   line. This gives other users the option to ignore off-topic posts.

4. ABOLISH SECRECY.  This is a science discussion; we hope to examine real
   physical evidence and to help each other in replicating inventions,
   claims, and phenomena.  If you want to keep your methods secret, or if
   you do not intend to give us any help in replicating your claims, then
   please discuss them elsewhere. (try vortexB-L, or freenrg-L) 

5. WHEN REPLYING TO A MESSAGE, PLEASE DON�T QUOTE THAT MESSAGE.  Yes it is
   ok to include snippets and chunks.  But try hard to avoid quoting an
   ENTIRE MESSAGEin your replies.  Only include entire messages if: A) 
   you are replying to a message that is many days old, or B) you are
   doing a point-by-point reply to many parts of a long message.

6. NO LIST CROSSPOSTING PLEASE.  Please do not include other email list
   addresses in the TO line or in the CC line of your Vortex-L messages.
   In the past this has caused masses of redundant messages and thread
   leakage between different lists, as incoming replies to the
   cross-addressed messages go to both lists.  It is OK to manually
   crosspost the bodies of messages from other lists.

7. MESSAGE SIZE IS LIMITED.  The limit is set to 40K right now, messages
   exceeding the limit will be bounced to the list owner.  Eskimo.com is
   unable to distribute tens of thousands of identical 300K files to users
   of its list servers. Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to the list
   owner and posted on the vortex-L page for viewing.

8. NO ADVERTISERS.  Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L
   users is acceptable, but "Spammer" email advertizing from new users
   will not be tolerated.

9. If Vortex-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
   making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  Direct
   any payments to the list owner, address above.  Any help you can give
   is sincerely appreciated!

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty DISPARAGEMENT                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb   4. ABOLISH SECRECY eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 21:41:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09813;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:39:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:39:16 -0800
Message-ID: <365B9801.6F1 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:39:13 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Storms: Blue:  He and heat  11.24.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"veMEn3.0.BP2.3WvMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25014
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:   Re: Blue: Storms: evidence weak for He and heat in CF
11.23.98
      Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:59:55 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> Subject:  Re: Storms: Murray: Mizuno Au volcano recombination artifact
> 11.22.98
>   Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:55:28 -0500 (EST)
>   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Dick Blue by Ed Storms
 
> > Rich, the model you propose is simply impossible, as I have explained
> > previously. I say this not to defend the nuclear explanation, but to
> > keep the discussion in the realm of good science, a condition skeptics
> > keep demanding. It does no good to provide an explanation which is
> > clearly impossible to avoid one you happen to believe is impossible.
> > The difference between the two explanations is that the mechanisms
> > involved in your model are well understood and are very basic to
> > physics. On the other hand, the explanation you are trying to reject 
> > has
> > some possibility of being correct, Dick Blue not withstanding. Prosaic
> > explanations must at least be consistent with reality as science
> > understands it.  I suggest you  either abandon this idea or demonstrate
> > with the proper calculations why I�m wrong. Good luck.
> >
> > Ed Storms
> 
> Well, once again I see my name being taken in vain by someone claiming
> to be an advocate of "good science."  Let's just see if we can, in fact,
> get Ed Storms to practice what he preaches.
> 
> Rich went out on a limb to propose a specific, detailed hypothesis which
> Ed Storms declares is impossible.  

If Dick wises to be objective in this debate, I suggest he evaluate
Rich's explanation in the same manner he uses to evaluate mine. 

> He then asserts that his nuclear
> reaction hypothesis "has some possibility of being correct, Dick Blue
> not withstanding."  Ed continues with, "Prosaic explanations must at
> least be consistent with reality as science understands it."
> 
> I don't disagree with that last statement, but it seems to me that if Ed
> Storms is to live up it, we must be able to carry our discussion of a
> possible CANR process through to the making of a specific, testable
> hypothesis -- something we can check against some reasonable standard
> for reality as science understands it.  If Ed Storms had the guts that
> Rich Murray shows he would, by now, be stating precisely what he
> considers a possible nuclear reaction process to account for the
> experimental data as he has selected it.

Many hypothesis are presently being tested experimentally, funding
permitting. Advocates of various theories, who have access to
experimental facilities, are testing their ideas.  Dick's ignorance of
these efforts has no relevance to the discussion,and I do not have the
time to describe these efforts, some of which people wish to keep
private for the time being.  On the other hand, it is my impression that
Dick really only wants a theory to test against his theoretical ideas. 
Any experimental result which conflicts with his theoretical ideas is
routinely rejected.

> When it comes to the specifics of a nuclear reaction process, where has
> Ed Storms and his extensive reviews of the field brought us?  I gather
> he is now asserting that some form of an (n, alpha) reaction process
> is likely to account for the observed helium and excess heat.

Just so there is no confusion, I am willing to explore every
possibility.  However, I accept the argument that fusion between two
isolated deuterons, as particles, is unlikely.  I have NOT rejected the
idea that two deuterons could interact as waves, as advocated by the
Chubbs.  In addition, the possibility exists for more than one process
to operate simultaneously.  However, for the sake of discussion, it is
best to examine one process at a time. I simply suggested to Dick that
we might profit by examining alpha emission rather than continue to
discuss the Chubb model, which he is already debating with Scott.  I
will answer the detailed questions Dick raised later.  However, I do not
like the confrontational approach Dick uses.  This will get us nowhere
if it continues.
 
> First, I believe, we should appreciate just where things stand with
> respect to the experimental evidence for helium as a reaction product
> as opposed to a simple, troublesome contaminant.  I refer to a
> review article by Ed Storms dated June 27, 1998, which is indicated
> for publication in Infinite Energy.  Surely this has the latest
> and greatest evidence to support Ed's current reaction hypothesis.
> 
> That evidence appears in Fig. 7 and is the results of Miles et al.
> (1996) and Bush and Lagowshi (1996).  It is a plot of the
> number of "atoms helium/watt-sec" versus "excess power (watt)".
> There are 10 data points displayed with, of course, their error
> bars on two axes.
> 
> Let us first examine the "excess power" coordinate.  The values
> of excess power are generally clustered around 0.05 Watts with
> errors of +/- 0.02 Watts.  There is but one datum with a power
> level of roughly 0.12 Watts.  These are hardly strong evidence
> for there being any real "excess power", especially in light
> of the limitations of isoperibolic calorimetry and a tendency
> for Miles and Bush to overstate the precision of their measurements.
> I simply don't find this very convincing evidence for any sort of
> exotic nuclear reaction process.

Once again the evidence is in the mind of the beholder.  I evaluate the
work and find the heat values to be credible, although small. Dick
rejects the claims because he believes both Miles and Bush overstate
their precision. Such a conflict can not be resolved by rational
argument.  Either a person believes a competent scientist, based on the
published data and discussions with the individuals, or a person does
not.  Dick chooses not to believe based on his assertion that the real
error completely overlaps all the data, making the apparent behavior a
result of random processes.

> Now on to  the "helium" coordinate of this graph.  Normal practice
> when doing a correlation analysis is to make a graph which is
> linear with respect to both variables to determine the slope
> of a straight line which provides a best fit to the data.  However,
> the Fig. 7 plot is semi-log covering two decades on the helium
> axis.  Those of you familiar with the fine art of plotting data
> will recognize that the use of a log scale serves to compress
> the range of the data with a side benefit that the variability
> of result and size of the error bars seem less significant.

This is not the only reason a semi-log plot is used, as every scientist
well knows. Admittedly, the data are scattered. For this reason, any
conclusion must be rather general.  The plot makes several general
conclusions possible, i.e. the individual data points obtained by two
different studies are consistent within their errors,  the amount of
helium is consistent with the amount of heat within the error, and the
apparent energy per reaction is below 23 MeV by between a factor of 2
and 5, depending on how one wishes to handle the error.

> Taking the error bars into consideration, my reading of the data
> in Fig. 7 is that the amount of helium detected may well be
> independent of the power level. If you lump the data around 0.05
> watts and treat it as a single measurement to be compared to the
> result at 0.12 watts one could make a case for saying that the
> lower power yields helium at almost twice the scaled rate for the
> higher power level.  That is just about what you would expect to
> see if the increased power had absolutely no effect on helium
> production.

If Dick is going to do a proper evaluation, I suggest he start with the
original data, which he has, rather than making arbitrary changes in my
plot. Both Miles and Bush, in their papers, plot the amount of He
against amount of heat. In both cases, a clear increasing relationship
is seen. There is absolutely no basis for lumping the 0.05 watt points
together. Does Dick believe this approach to data evaluation is good
science?

> Of course I have been a little dishonest up to this point because,
> if Ed Storms is correct, there are  "virtual data" for the runs
> which yield no excess heat that are not plotted in Fig. 7.
> These are the data points said to lie at (0,0) on our correlation
> plot.  However, since these data are not exhibited we cannot
> really determine how much like a true (zero, zero) measurement
> these results appear.  Because the results, I suspect, are very
> close to the limits of precision with respect to both measurements
> distiguishing between "zero" helium and 10^11 atoms of helium
> is not straightforward and obvious.  Neither is it possible
> to clearly separate "zero" excess heat from 0.05 watts using
> the techniques employed for these measurements.  I really
> would like to see all the data, including the "zeroes", before
> I make any judgement.

You have the data, why not use it?  Why base an evaluation on what you
suspect?  If we debate what we each suspect, we will get nowhere. A
physical reality is available which can be evaluated independent of its
implications. If the data supported an accepted idea, I trust Dick would
have no difficulty in seeing a relationship.
 
> The data presented in Fig. 7 are totally consistent with a
> hypothesis which asserts that the helium is an incidental
> contaminant, not the product of some exotic and undetectable
> nuclear reaction process.  However, I will note that these
> data may well be adequate to disprove the reaction hypothesis
> that Ed Storms is now attempting to float.  As is indicated
> in Fig. 7, the level of helium seen is roughly appropriate
> for a reaction that yields 24 MeV per reaction event, but
> the proposed (n, alpha) reaction most likely will not yield
> nearly that much energy.  Two MeV per reaction is likely to
> be a more appropriate energy scale, and that will require
> 10 times more helium than has been detected!

Many alpha emissions have energy in the 4-5 MeV range.  The Miles-Bush
data are consistent with such energy at the extreme of the error. In
addition, a significant, but unknown, amount of He will remain locked in
the palladium. Until all the He is accounted for, no firm conclusion
about the amount of energy can be made.  Surely, Dick knows this from
his scientific background.

> So less energy per event requires more helium (or other
> reaction product.) It should also be acknowledged that
> the higher the energy available, the more likely it becomes
> that something such as gamma decay or neutron emission
> will be involved.  What Ed Storms considers "possible" is
> largely colored by what he does not know. It is a rather
> dangerous position from which to be making pronouncements
> as to what may be scientifically reasonable about a
> CANR process and opposed to something chemical and atomic.

And what Dick considers impossible is also colored by what he does not
know. We are in the same boat and it does no good to debate which part
of the boat has the greater number of leaks. We need to find a way to
repair the boat.

I am in the process of evaluating some of the published studies and
getting ready for Christmas.  Therefore, I will not be continuing this
debate until I have something new to offer and the time to reply.

I wish Dick and the patient readers all the best during the Holidays.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 21:57:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14744;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:55:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:55:44 -0800
Message-ID: <365B9BE0.D38 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:55:44 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  11.24.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"F1G0f1.0.Hc3.VlvMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25015
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 11.23.98
      Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:39:19 -0500
      From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

>I have been trying for years to get Scott Chubb to make a
>simple, direct statement as to how his theory treats the
>internal coordinate of the deuteron.  Over and over again
>I ask this question.  What is the potential which determines
>the eigenfunction for that part of the deuteron wave function
>that describes the motion of nucleons within a deuteron?

Putting the polemics aside, I think that the confusion is partly my
fault and partly yours. It also reflects a very important point that the
discussion has clarified.  I am not saying that the nuclear wave
function possess Bloch symmetry with respect to every internal
coordinate.

But I am saying that there is an internal coordinate that is required to
possess Bloch symmetry, which simply has no counterpart outside the
lattice.  This coordinate, which is an internal coordinate of the final
state wave function, is the deuteron-deuteron separation variable,
defined by the difference between the center of mass of deuteron 1 from
the center of mass of deuteron 2.  In "normal" nuclear physics, this
coordinate is allowed to be taken to zero in the electromagnetic
interaction, and the relevant strong interaction calculation treats this
variable as being on a comparable footing as the remaining coordinates
(which all are of nuclear dimension).  In the band state situation, this
variable is allowed to be taken zero only modulo a Bravais lattice
vector in the electromagnetic interaction and (as a consequence) to be
of nuclear dimension modulo a Bravais lattice vector in the nuclear
reaction calculation.

>I thought I had received a clear statement from Scott that
>he considered that potential to be periodic mod R where R
>is the lattice spacing for the D+ ion band lattice.
>Is that potential periodic as described?  Yes or No???

This is true of the self-generated potential with respect to the
deuteron 1 - deuteron 2 separation variable (defined in the last
paragraph) and the center of mass of each deuteron and of the 4He center
of mass.  It is not required of the remaining, internal coordinates. 

>It's a simple and direct question, and Scott had given
>me an answer which I challenged on the basis of the actual
>physics of the problem.

You had a  misconception that I was claiming periodicity of all
quantities.  The point is that the relevant properties of the overlap
between the initial and final states (and the associated timescales)
define the relevant physics.  On some timescale, the periodicity "might"
extend to some of the coordinates that you suggested.  But the important
point relates to what is measurable and what is not.  In all
probability, the effects of periodicity on some of these coordinates
simply cannot be measured because the relevant timescales are so short.

>Now he is back peddling and asserting that my question is
>irrelevant to the issues at hand.  

I have never back peddled in our recent discussions or (for that matter)
during the last four years.  And in fact, your question is most relevant
because it forces me to state clearly what is required and what is not. 
In particular, I can see that I did not make myself clear.  And this
discussion has been helpful in making me realize this fact.

>I read that to mean
>that he still has not really addressed anything relating
>to the internal wave function of the deuteron.  My position
>remains that one simply cannot do a theory for a nuclear
>reaction process unless you include the internal coordinates
>of the reacting nuclei in the problem.

The relevant internal coordinates have identical behavior to the ones
you are used to, with one important exception:  the r1-r2 dependence in
the wave function leads to Bloch symmetry, and the associated potential
is periodic.  This is mandated by the requirements of periodic order and
B-O separability in the coherent (electromagnetic+nuclear) reaction.

>We can, of course, continue to consider the question as to
>whether coherence of the wave function for the center-of-mass
>motion of the deuterons can lead to some unexpected overlap
>between two deuterons.  That is indeed an interesting
>question to consider.  My point is not that said overlap
>is impossible.

Our paper on the WEB provides an explicit calculation that illustrates
this assertion need not be valid.  The key physics that is required for
the overlap to take place is that the electromagnetic and nuclear wave
functions possess Bloch symmetry with respect to the r1-r2 separation
variable (r1= center of mass of deuteron 1, r2=center of mass of
deuteron 2).  The Bloch symmetry must be present in both the
electromagnetic and nuclear wave functions to preserve B-O
separability.  Once this occurs, the nuclear potential and
electromagnetic potential are constrained to be periodic with respect to
this variable.  (Here, the nuclear potential is defined by the time
derivative of the two deuteron initial nuclear state with the 4He final
nuclear state.)

> but I do insist that the resulting reaction
>will share certain characteristics of the more familiar
>muon-catalyzed cold fusion.  That is unless and until
>someone gives a justification which involves significant
>pertubations of the internal wavefunction of the interacting
>deuterons.  

The muon catalyzed reaction has no bearing when the r1-r2 potential
becomes periodic.

>That, in a nut shell, is why the interal wave
>functions are a significant aspect of this problem in spite
>of Scott Chubb's assertions to the contrary.      

Dick Blue
>
>Subject:  Re: Chubb: Shanahan: Blue: band state theory 11.20.98
>  Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:25:42 -0500 (EST)
>  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>    To:   rmforall earthlink.net
>
>> Subject: Re: Blue: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
>>       Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:04:58 -0500
>>       From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
>>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>>      Please try to look at what is being said, prior to responding
>> vacuously. I am beginning to find your comments tiring.  I have
>> "gleaned" some insights from the discussion.  But it appears your
>> comments our now degenerating into a tirade.  Note the following from my
>> last two comments:
>>
>> 1.  The lattice does not have to be perfect!
>>
>> 2.  The deuteron ion band states only interact with themselves; which is
>> where approximate periodic order is required!
>>
>> 3.  The idealization of T=0 is not required!
>>
>> 4.  Please try to read before you blurt out meaningless comments!
>>
>> 5.  Please try to do science, instead of pontificating!
>>
>> 6.  Please look at my comments to Kirk Shanahan, and my comments to you!
>
>Please answer a few simple, direct questions concerning the physics of
>nuclear reactions and stop attempting to hid behind some supposed
>superior understand of condensed matter physics.  If we are to discuss a
>nuclear reaction process, surely the nuclear physics becomes relevant at
>some point, yet you actual assert that you can "explain" all without
>even thinking about the reaction physics.  Who are you to accuse me of
>"pontificating"? Read your own frequent assertions concerning the limits
>of my understanding.

Dick, the problem seems to be that you have misrepresented what I have
said, prior to reading my responses to your questions and comments. 
This gets exasperating.  I think (hope) that the comments I have given
above clarify what has been an important point of confusion.

>Now one test of the validity the of your theory is whether others,
>equally well versed in condensed matter physics, consider your papers
>suitable for publication in Physical Review, for example.  I gather that
>you have not had much success with journal referees.  Have you been 
>presenting your ideas to any audience capable of excercising reasonable
>critical judgements?

Absolutely; I am an employee of the Naval Research Laboratory.  The
theory has been examined in the lab at length by condensed matter
physicists, nuclear physicists, and  several many-body/quantum field
theorists. Qualified individuals from Cal Tech and MIT have also
critiqued and examined the theory.  The theory has been both warmly and
coldly received by these audiences.  The primary area of disagreement
has been (and continues to be) whether or not the wave functions can
possess Bloch symmetry with respect to the r1-r2 dependence.  However, I
note in passing that an important reason for this probably is that we
have not emphasized the origin of the associated (self-induced)
potential and the role of timescale in the evolution of this potential.

>In my comments to Kirk Shanahan I pointed out that Ed Storms has been
>moving away from d + d fusion as a model for CANR process.  That surely
>is a question of fact easily checked in this forum.  Do you agree or
>disagree that cold fusion, as far as Storms is concerned, is largely
>a dead issue?  So where does that leave your wonderful theory?

There are complicated effects going on.  Ed has mentioned some
two-deuteron configurations reminiscient of diatomic molecules.  In the
surface region, in fact, this might very well be realistic.  (The point
is that the underlying theory triggers effects that are initiated at the
surface; the final release of by-product and energy can be quite
different from what triggers the effect, because in the surface region a
number of competing effects can be at work.)

>When you stated the key assumptions which underlie your theory, I recall
>that you placed T=0 at the top of the list.  When I call that assumption
>into question you now make a big point of saying that having T=0
>is not really all that important.  Which way would you have it?


I emphasized the T=0 limit as an important one for providing rigorous
statements about defining the underlying rules of the theory, but I also
(hope) I have stressed that the theory applies at finite temperature. 
At T=0, rigorous simplifications are present that may disappear at
finite temperature.

>The question, of course, is just how coherent the nuclear wave functions
>likely will be over distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  I
>don't see that you have done anything to demonstrate that the coherence
>must be unusually high for those deuterons in the ion band state.  You
>have made some form of "selfconsistancy" argument, but is that not based
>on your having left a good deal of physics out of the problem?

Discussion of the "self-consistency" argument and the underlying
potential are areas that require clarification.  What has been left out
or not left out relates to how well the system has been prepared to
mimic the situation depicted by the theory.  The theory illustrates that
there does exist a situation where a particular scenario involving
release of low energy 4He in surface regions with heat can occur.

>In any case, I am not here to dispute whether your overlap between ion
>band deuterons might lead to a nuclear reaction.  What I continue to
>call to question is precisely what the outcome of said reaction will
>be.  If you do not address that question, you have no theory worth
>beans. 

Two points:  first off, "just providing a framework" for understanding
how reaction can occur without high energy particles is a step forward.
Secondly, regardless of this fact, the theory does provide rules for the
associated outcome, given a particular set of initial conditions.  I
guess I am reacting to the phrase "[that the] theory [is not] worth
beans;"  I would say that these two points indicate the theory has
value.

>Now why is it so difficult to get you to describe, in some
>detail, how you do address the reaction physics?     Dick Blue
>
>Subject: Re: Storms: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
>  Date:  Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:44:58 -0500 (EST)
>  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>    To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>
>> Your understanding of my views is correct but not quite complete.  The
>> 'special states of matter' require a very high deuterium concentration
>> to form.  This high concentration only exists near the surface. The
>> depth of the high concentration region will depend on the nature of the
>> palladium and the rate at which deuterium is being applied to the
>> sample. The region has depth and will have bulk properties. The area of
>> the active region will depend on the frequency of surface penetrating
>> cracks.  Some active regions many be only a few square microns while
>> other areas might be a few square millimeters.  This view in no way
>> conflicts with the Chubb model.  The scale on which the model is applied
>> is variable but the model is unchanged.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>
>Here is a point which we should be able to clear up.  Scott Chubb
>presents a theory for the reaction d + d -> 4He.  He considers only that
>specific reaction.  Ed Storms suggests that this reaction is not, in
>fact, responsible for the generation of excess heat.  He proposes an
>alternative reaction involving neutron transfer followed by alpha
>emission.  Scott Chubb does not address any reaction of that sort. 

I do not believe neutron transfer plays a significant role.  However, if
disorder occurs suddenly (which could occur with crack formation) in the
surface region, it may be possible to initiate exotic reactions
involving neutrons.  But the relevant physics dictates (at least in my
mind) that such phenomena probably are very limited and certainly are
not dominant. (This result is also consistent with measurement.)

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 22:16:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA19578;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:14:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:14:34 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365B92EF.537D ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:17:35 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"29J7I.0.gn4.A1wMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25016
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 24, 1998

What George Holz diagrammed out, within the limits of ascii, looks like
a vacuum tube photomultiplier.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Nov 24 22:25:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23785;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:24:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:24:35 -0800
Message-ID: <365BA243.5111 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:23:00 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: request for comments: new vortex-L rules
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981124133211.10951B-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qTaEu3.0.Wp5.YAwMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25017
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

William Beaty wrote:
> 
> Below are my efforts at updating the rules.  Unless other people have
> suggestions, these will "become law".

I only have real problems with one section of these rules, Bill.
This section is the one I copied below, dealing with skepticism.
Skepticism can WORK BOTH WAYS.  In my old Webster's dictionary, the
first definition listed for skepticism is:
	"the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge 
	 must always be in question and that inquiry must be a 
	 process of doubting."

Now, if this doesn't imply an "open mind", I don't know what does.
I think the doubting can be of a NEW RADICAL IDEA, or it can be a
doubting of ENTRENCHED, WIDELY HELD CONCEPTS.  In this sense, I think
that an effective searcher for anomalous physical realities NEEDS A DOSE
OF SKEPTICISM in the above context.  It is in this light that I
make the following comments on rule 2:

> 2. "SKEPTICAL" DISPARAGEMENT OF UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR CONCEPTS IS FORBIDDEN.

OK, here you begin to make a "dirty word" of "skeptical".  Why not just
say: DISPARAGING RIDICULE OF UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR CONCEPTS IS FORBIDDEN."


>    Vortex-L is a tilted playing field.  We are a big nasty nest of 'true
>    believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,)

OK, the above statement is really making me feel unwanted!  One of my
most important goals in my consideration of anomalous science is to
avoid self-deception.  If this list is about believing in fairy tales,
then, I'm afraid I'm out of place.
I did not believe that Watson's SMOT was OU but I was SKEPTICAL enough
of standard physics to round up magnets and balls and give it a go.
And, it was fun!
I did not believe that Maranov's motor ran on non-Lorentzian principles,
but I put in hours of work in my garage machining the best copy of the
machine that I knew how to build with limited resources because I am
SKEPTICAL enough of all "knowledge" to be excited about the chance of
finding a "chink in the standard armor".

>    and skeptics may as well leave in disgust.

Here, I think we continue to bash a concept that has always been of
good service in isolating true anomalies from technical fairy tales.

 But if your mind is open,
>    hop on board!  Help us test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them

Yes, I like that!

>    or explaining them away.
This phrase sucks!  If Mike Schaffer can, in his ever polite manner,
explain to me why my crackpot idea won't work - bring on his explanation
and save me a lot of work!  These explanations are often directed at
suggested mods to experimental methods to improve the reality of a
new test.  Explanation is part of constructive input to a new
experimental effort.

OK, that's all.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 00:17:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA22306;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:16:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:16:22 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2816c804dcf [208.228.222.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:23:20 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"gNLyh1.0.OS5.MpxMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25018
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:17 PM 11/24/98, aki ix.netcom.com wrote:
>November 24, 1998
>
>What George Holz diagrammed out, within the limits of ascii, looks like
>a vacuum tube photomultiplier.
>
>-ak-


It was I who diagrammed that photomultiplier resembling thing.  One
difference is the electrons go *through* the plates.  Another is that a
photmultiplier multiplies current.  The proposed device (supposedly) adds
heat or kinetic energy at each stage for which there is no antecedent
energy. There is no input energy, corresponding to extra current to drive
across fixed voltages, as there is with the phtomultiplier.  Each stage has
exactly the same inputs and outputs, yet each stage appears to gain excess
heat, about 4 volts * i amps at each stage.  Eavh stage carries the same
current i.

So now the question, where's the fallacy?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 00:26:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA24591;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:25:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:25:38 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:25:36 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: request for comments: new vortex-L rules
In-Reply-To: <365BA243.5111 interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981124225426.16130C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8TVyw.0.906.2yxMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25019
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> I only have real problems with one section of these rules, Bill.
> This section is the one I copied below, dealing with skepticism.

Good point, perhaps I should change this bit of "in-group" terminology.

There's skepticism, and then there's "Skepticism".  These rules you have
problems with were the originals, and I wrote them during the s.p.f. 
battles when two polarized groups formed.  The "skeptics" accused the
"true believers" of unfounded belief that CF might be real, while "true
believers" accused "skeptics" of unfounded DISbelief.  The term
"pathological skepticism" was coined to describe the skeptical side, since
it was clear that most of the attacks upon CF had nothing at all to do
with rational skepticism.  As years passed, the same fight spread to "free
energy" as well.  If you refuse to badmouth and sneer at CF and F/E, and
if you suspect that there might be something worthwhile investigating,
then you are a "true believer".  If you wish to examine evidence or even
perform experiments, rather than dimissing all positive evidence as
worthless, then you are a "true believer."  On the other hand, if you
heartily agree with everything in the Taubes book, if you consider "free
energy" to be disgusting perpetual motion crackpotism, and if you think
that CF and F/E experiments should be made illegal because they might
waste valuable research funding, then you are a "skeptic".  (Clearly these
are specialized uses of the terms!)  :) 

One excellent article on the believer/skeptic terminology stuff is: 
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/pseudo.html ...by Marcello
Truzzi, who wishes to replace the term "skeptic" with "pseudoskeptic"
rather than with "pathological skeptic".  In other articles, Truzzi has
suggested "zetetic" as a lable for the earlier idea of openminded
skepticism.

> Skepticism can WORK BOTH WAYS.  In my old Webster's dictionary, the
> first definition listed for skepticism is:
> 	"the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge 
> 	 must always be in question and that inquiry must be a 
> 	 process of doubting."

Yes, this is the original usage of "skeptic", before it came to mean
"intolerant narrow-minded debunker".

> 2. "SKEPTICAL" DISPARAGEMENT OF UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR CONCEPTS IS FORBIDDEN.
> 
> OK, here you begin to make a "dirty word" of "skeptical".  Why not just
> say: DISPARAGING RIDICULE OF UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR CONCEPTS IS FORBIDDEN."

Good point, I will.  Unfortunately "skeptical" is not just *beginning* to
become a dirty word, and it's not just me.  Past CSICOP events, the UFO
controversy, and then the recent decade's battles regarding CF have
damaged the term "skeptical" beyond repair.  This is why Vortex-L was
created using the following as a proud banner:

  Vortex-L is a tilted playing field.  We are a big nasty nest of 'true
  believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,)

> OK, the above statement is really making me feel unwanted!  One of my
> most important goals in my consideration of anomalous science is to
> avoid self-deception.

Good.  Then you want to be a zetetic, and to avoid becoming a skeptic
(meaning pseudoskeptic).  You want to avoid the morass of self-deception
where everything which contradicts current theory is by definition
impossible.  Pseudoskeptics tend to be fairly humorless, therefor we "true
believers" adopt their desparaging lable with a grin, and therefor I
started Vortex-L as a "true believer" forum.  (Downtrodden minority groups
often turn slander against their opponent by happily adopting the
slanderous lables.)

>  If this list is about believing in fairy tales,
> then, I'm afraid I'm out of place.

Too late!  :) "Skeptics" declared CF and free energy to be fairy tales
long ago.

> I did not believe that Watson's SMOT was OU but I was SKEPTICAL enough
> of standard physics to round up magnets and balls and give it a go.
> And, it was fun!

Gasp!  Skeptical of modern physics?  That is the very definition of "true
believer."  I'm afraid you're doomed.  Retreat now, before the condition
becomes permanent!

> I did not believe that Maranov's motor ran on non-Lorentzian principles,
> but I put in hours of work in my garage machining the best copy of the
> machine that I knew how to build with limited resources because I am
> SKEPTICAL enough of all "knowledge" to be excited about the chance of
> finding a "chink in the standard armor".
> 
> >    and skeptics may as well leave in disgust.
> 
> Here, I think we continue to bash a concept that has always been of
> good service in isolating true anomalies from technical fairy tales.
> 
>  But if your mind is open,
> >    hop on board!  Help us test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them
> 
> Yes, I like that!
> 
> >    or explaining them away.
> This phrase sucks!  

"Explaining away" is a specialized term which means "belittling and
dismissing unwanted anomalies with glib, unsupported, off-the-cuff
explanations."  For example: "All positive evidence for cold fusion is
caused by researchers not taking recombination into account."  Or from
earlier times: "All UFO encounters are either from burning marsh gas or
sightings of Venus."  Or a more twisted version: "Free energy is
impossible, therefor any positive evidence is invariably a mistake.  You
say you have positive evidence?  Well, this just proves you have made a
mistake."  But actually finding a genuine mistake is not "explaining
away".

I can change "explaining them away" to "belittling and dismissing them".

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 01:01:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04573;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:01:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:01:05 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b281706a3955 [208.228.222.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:08:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: request for comments: new vortex-L rules
Resent-Message-ID: <"CNwr82.0.N71.GTyMs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25020
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 6:25 PM 11/24/98, William Beaty wrote:
[snip]
>
>4. ABOLISH SECRECY.  This is a science discussion; we hope to examine real
>   physical evidence and to help each other in replicating inventions,
>   claims, and phenomena.  If you want to keep your methods secret, or if
>   you do not intend to give us any help in replicating your claims, then
>   please discuss them elsewhere. (try vortexB-L, or freenrg-L)


This is very good in that there are clear benefits to excluding discussion
of claims not backed up by either a fully disclosed experiment or a fully
disclosed quantitative testable theory.  In those circumstances nothing can
be achieved but idle speculation.  However, technically, as the rule is
written above, it may stifle one of the great benefits of vortex, its value
as a resource pool.  I think asking for help in some specific area, or even
just a presence here, should not be grounds for someone to expect the asker
to give away all his secrets.

I have freely given away many ideas and some experimental results that I
thought were good enough to possibly gell into something, especially with
additional discussion here, though nothing great has gelled from this yet
as far as I know.  I have also been involved in some private work that I
hope will eventually, one way or another, bear financial fruit.  I would
not want to discuss any private work before there is something worthwhile
to discuss, and if really worthwhile, before a patent app.  I think many
here have been involved in work they wish to keep private, especially in
light of the possible cost of disclosing intellectual property before its
time.  Also, some work done by people here on vortex is either secret or
protected by confidentiality agreements.

In addition, there should be no requirement to respond.  I respond when I
have time and don't when I don't.  Also, some topics are best dropped.
Abolishing secrecy implies a necessity to respond.

Your wording "if you do not intend to give us any help in replicating your
claims", and I emphasise the word "your", does seem to indicate you are not
thinking along the lines that would be a problem for me, but rather you
seem to be shooting at eliminating unproductive protracted discussion of
"secret" inventions.  I don't have any good suggestions for additional
qualifying words right now because I am so bleary eyed I can barely finsh
this.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 02:57:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA20291;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:54:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:54:32 -0800
Message-ID: <060801be1861$f7b85660$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:54:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Q1Jo2.0.zy4.e7-Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25021
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a spreadsheet, listing the elements and their properties,
an Excel 97 .xls file:

http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/elements.xls

The link is temporary so please don't point to it from anywhere else.

If you don't have the capability of using an xls file, replace that with
htm,
but in that form it isn't nearly as easy to read and you can't resort by
columns in the htm page.  You could however probably save it out of
some html editors as a tab-delimited text file.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 03:45:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA26771;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:44:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:44:19 -0800
Message-ID: <000001be1868$9b5a3bc0$714bccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Prototype Plans, Analysis
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:51:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"yuisV3.0.9Y6.Is-Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25022
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Eric, you wrote:


>I was wondering if any one knew of any resources as to how plans for a
>prototype could be analyzed? Analysis for basic functionality. This is
coming
>from the perspective of an amateur.


There are lots of hungry consultants and some firms that advertise that they
promote inventions. The first, if any good, will want consulting fees of
$50 -- 150/hr. The second I would regard with caution.

>And how do you address having un-patented concepts reviewed for integrity?
I'm
>sure this is something of an issue.


The standard way is a non-disclosure agreement which gives you a basis for
suit if your consultant isn't honest.
>
>I was thinking maybe there were some type of engineering services out there
>somewhere. A service where you send them your plans and they review them,
>analyze, etc. Any and all ideas would be helpful. Thanks


There are such, but they charge fees. And if your idea is far out, their
advice may be worthless.


Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 04:39:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA10422;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:38:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:38:24 -0800
Message-ID: <365D208D.6853EA6F ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:34:06 -0800
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: request for comments: new vortex-L rules
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981124133211.10951B-100000 eskimo.com> <365BA243.5111@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"NUR8n.0.iY2.0f_Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25023
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



"Francis J. Stenger" wrote:

>         "the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge
>          must always be in question and that inquiry must be a
>          process of doubting."
>
> Now, if this doesn't imply an "open mind", I don't know what does.
> I think the doubting can be of a NEW RADICAL IDEA, or it can be a
> doubting of ENTRENCHED, WIDELY HELD CONCEPTS.  In this sense, I think
> that an effective searcher for anomalous physical realities NEEDS A DOSE
> OF SKEPTICISM in the above context.  It is in this light that I
> make the following comments on rule 2:

The open minded philosophy is a bit different, You judge things not by how
exotic unique and strange and unproven they may seem or what would have to be
wrong or contradicted for them to be true, You judge each effect or device on
it's own merits, you also must ignore the seeming lack of credibility of the
inventor and go on only the device it's self.
The idea is if two people who you don't know tell you two stories, each sound
reasonably sincere and don't contradict them self you accept both as possibly
being true, even if one claims he just went to the bank and the other claims he
just came back from a test of his time machine, the one who claims he went to
the bank could be lying as you have no proof but you just have to take the risk
that he could be lying.

It is tempting to write something off because the person seems nutty or is not
your idea of credible but you really must learn to separate the device from the
inventor as the device is what needs to be judged.

> >    Vortex-L is a tilted playing field.  We are a big nasty nest of 'true
> >    believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,)
>
> OK, the above statement is really making me feel unwanted!  One of my
> most important goals in my consideration of anomalous science is to
> avoid self-deception.  If this list is about believing in fairy tales,
> then, I'm afraid I'm out of place.

If someone claims something that sounds like a fairy tale you don't have to
believe it as though it was proven true or probably true but you don't judge
things on how out of the ordinary they might be, You don't have to believe most
of the things the idea is to keep an open mind and consider things even if they
are uncomfortably "out-there", You don't deceive your self in believing half as
much as you do in not believing, Treat an amazing claim you don't believe in
the same way you would a boring claim you don't believe, That way you will give
a good reason for not believing rather than just showing your inability to
think about anything a bit too far out there.

In other words it is a process of believing rather than a process of doubting
because these things can be hard enough to believe without added skepticism,
You don't believe fully, As in the example before you would believe in the same
way you believe a normal claim with no proof, You accept that it could be real
and don't write it off, believe it enough to give it a fair study, "True
Believer" does not mean you believe everything but it means you are willing to
accept the more amazing things (without proof) in the same way a normal
conventional scientist believes (accepts to consider) conventional things
without proof.

If you can't even take it seriously them please just ignore the claim all
together as the rule against skeptics on this list is only about skeptics
fighting with believers, If you are a skeptic you are welcome to be on this
list just not welcome to share your skeptic beliefs. (though you can say you
don't believe something just make sure it is because of the merits of the case
and not mere skepticism)


John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 04:49:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA13845;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:48:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 04:48:46 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981125125529.00ecb9c0 popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:55:29 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Wish me luck?
Resent-Message-ID: <"u9pCt2.0.zN3.jo_Ms" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25024
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

I'm off to the Boston Redevelopment Authority public records to see if I can
get to the bottom of the landlord's resonsibility to artists. Here is a
summary of recent events. Sorry there is only one on topic (?) sentence below.


>To the Residents of the Piano Factory
>
>	I have been somewhat successful in obtaining original contracts concerning
the developer obligations Mr. Bruner agreed to uphold in return for the 1%
subsidized mortgage he received for the Piano Factory. I have found in these
documents, what I believe are valid concerns that Mr. Bruner violated
covenants and obligations that he promised to uphold. These violations
indicate that Mr. Bruner has no right to the course of action he is now
engaged in. I am fairly confident that if these issues are brought up in a
court of law, Mr. Bruner will have to forfeit ownership rights to the Piano
Factory. Some of the issues include:
>
>1. MHFA mortgage says that Mr. Bruner cannot violate any covenants
whatsoever. The fact that        he is conceding to extend protections to
2014 because of covenant violations indicates that he        is in violation
of the MHFA mortgage requirements.
>
>2. The MHFA Interest Subsidy Contract states that because Mr. Bruner is
receiving a 1%                   subsidized mortgage, he must retain the
MHFA mortgage payments for no less than 40 years.         This is in
conflict with the MHFA mortgage itself. However, the last amendment to the
mortgage was never approved or accepted by the corresponding Interest
Subsidy Contract             amendment. Thus there is a mistake in the MHFA
procedures. In addition, prepayment                   constitutes a covenant
violation of the MHFA Interest Subsidy Contract, which violates the
MHFA mortgage clause of not violating any covenants (or the like).
>
>3. The beliefs that leads one to become an Artist is a creed. The fact that
Mr. Bruner required             evidence of being an artist for admission to
tenancy to the Piano Factory is reverse
discrimination which is in violation to anti-discrimination covenants of the
South End Urban           Renewal Plan. The only legal way of attracting
artists to the Piano Factory is to have the                 Boston
Redevelopment Authority approve of art related resources be included to the
building         structure and rely on artists to apply for tenancy due to
these amenities. This is probably the           reason BRA associate
director ignored my requests for 'Representations' made at the signing
of original contracts. There may be amenities that were 'overlooked'.
Certainly, with these             issues coming to light, the present
negotiation strategy and upcoming contract must be fully            reexamined.
>
>	Clearly, there are problems with signing any contract that will allow Mr.
Bruner to continue on his present course without answering the above and
other issues in a reliable, absolute, accountable way which is consistent
with the Law. Not something off the top of some lawyer's head which is
designed to make one back off from fear. How can our lawyers have missed the
above issues? I believe that they have no fear of recourse from the Board Of
Bar Overseers. I tried to file a complaint against the BRA lawyer Saul
Shapiro for his statement that releasing the information I requested would
disrupt present negotiations between Mr. Bruner and tenants. This indicates
that this information is vital to proper mutual assent and consideration
requirements of a legal contract. Retaining such information makes the
contract illegal. The Board of Bar Overseers refused to discipline Saul
Schapiro on a minor technicality despite overwhelming evidence of Code of
Ethics violations. In addition, if the lawyers provide only 50% of complete
evidence to a case and then let our negotiations battle it out, it will be
like fighting with wet noodles. Such conditions will make the battle much
more costly and thus lawyer fees will skyrocket.
>
>	I have often wondered how can people running the Piano Craft Guild Tenants
Association disregard my numerous requests to find the information I have
recently uncovered. I have often seen certain tenants, the PCGTA, Harvey
Shapiro and other lawyers, use psychology mind control techniques against
people they are supposed to be representing for reasons that appear contrary
to our best interests. I can only conclude that people who are anxious to
railroad us into signing the upcoming unfair and illegal contract with Mr.
Bruner are Bruner wannabees. Betraying our interests and trust in this
matter is their immoral admission ticket to the club of the unethical and
evil wealthy; they think. To want to be included to such an environment is
life force depleting.
>
>	I need feedback that you want me to fight for your true legal rights in
this matter. I need to know that you all are worthy of grants if and when
the Piano Factory Art Foundation comes into existence. A word about the
Foundation. I would like to provide grants which would encourage the
awareness of alternative energy technologies in our society. These
technologies have been suppressed in the name of greed for over 100 years.
As a result, we are now facing global warming effects which could jeopardize
our future with natural catastrophes of Biblical proportions. Have you
noticed the weather lately? In the past several months, China and Texas has
experienced massive 500 year floods. 10,000 people were killed in Central
America from mudslides induced by heavy rains. The first snowstorm in
Minnesota created 12" of snow and killed seven people in the part of the
storm that spawned tornadoes. If global warming continues, it is predicted
that the polar ice caps may fall into the ocean and produce a tidal wave.
The Piano Factory building will not survive such an occurrence. I would just
as soon give up on everything, collect $10,000 and move to the middle of the
country. You probably don't believe the weather could get that bad; time
will tell. Keep notice of weather reports, we shall see how this winter is.
>
>	I am risking everything trying to stand up for our true legal rights
because I believe we can turn things around if we succeed in creating the
Piano Factory Art Foundation. We can get government agencies to operate
honestly, give reason to BRA developers to act ethically and responsibly in
the future, give hope to tenants for greater success in the future, advance
art in the city of Boston like there's no tomorrow (pun intended), give
reason to lawyers in the future to truly represent their clients, and
possibly even help literally save the world. Given the evidence we now have,
there's no reason why we cannot succeed. Unless we are too afraid,
apathetic, or evil to care to do what's right. In which case you will
deserve to stew and die in this self made Hell. The choice is yours.  I
think that the weather will end up killing us all if I fail. I will continue
until one of you is evil enough to stop me.
>
>
>
>					                                                                Dennis
C. Lee



Regards;
Dennis

PS. Add Greece and Washington state to the flood list.



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 05:34:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA29809;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 05:33:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 05:33:23 -0800
Message-ID: <00de01be1877$8f1efc60$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Borax and Boric Acid in O-U Experiments
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:28:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"wWHyS1.0.dH7.ZS0Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25025
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The 4,000 barn neutron fission cross-section of Boron 10 suggests that it
may be useful in O-U
experiments.

Borax, Na2B4O7-5H2O and Boric Acid, H3BO3 which contain about 19% Boron 10
can be safely used in the Kinetic Furnace or Griggs Pump, as well as in
electrical discharge experiments, so that
in the event that any form of neutron or quasi-neutron is formed it should
effect the reaction:

n + B 10 ---> He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev

Interesting that the best source of Lithium is
near large mineral deposits of Boron.

Twenty Mule Team Borax from "Death Valley Days"?

If these experiments don't pan out, you can probably sell the apparatus to
Frank Stenger so he can use it for washing out his socks. :-)

Regards,   Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 05:53:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06261;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 05:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 05:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811251348.IAA04724 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:42:57 -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: <"B1IVl1.0.jX1.Bj0Ns" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25026
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have Excel 7.0, but it says that this file does not have a valid format.

----------
> From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk eskimo.com>
> To: vortex-L eskimo.com
> Subject: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 5:54 AM
> 
> This is a spreadsheet, listing the elements and their properties,
> an Excel 97 .xls file:
> 
> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/elements.xls
> 

Ed Wall
NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 07:11:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07513;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:09:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:09:55 -0800
Message-ID: <365C25BF.14F ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:43:59 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
References: <v01530500b2816c804dcf [208.228.222.234]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4YqP6.0.Ar1.2t1Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25027
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 25, 1998

Horace,

> It was I who diagrammed that photomultiplier resembling thing.

Oops.

>One difference is the electrons go *through* the plates. 

I do not see how a specific electron, facing a 'screen' having nominally
a positive polarity, can travel through without being captured. (Except
if the voltages are high enough, then the electrons will go through
proportionate to the voltage). And I doubt the emitting side of the
screen, hot enough ("heated") to have a cloud of electrons (space
charge) will allow this particular electron to travel through. Probably
the electron cloud may obsure the positive polarity of the 'screen' if
the starting voltage is not hign enough. And instead of the starting
electron, one of the electrons in the 'cloud' will travel to the next
positive 'screen' and so on until the other side is reached. I am not a
vacuum tube expert but reference works seem to agree with this
reasoning.

>Another is that a photmultiplier multiplies current.  

I agree. The photomultiplier was mentioned for its schematic structural
similarity and action described, not it's use. Perhaps a multielectrode
vacuum tube may be a closer approximation.
  
> So now the question, where's the fallacy?

<snip>
I'd say the fallacy is that if it does not work experimentally, and I
doubt that it will, the rationale will have to be filled out to fit the
results.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 08:15:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11990;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:13:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:13:20 -0800
Message-ID: <365C34A8.6A5E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:47:36 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
References: <060801be1861$f7b85660$a51a7acc temp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4vbbX1.0.Ax2.Vo2Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25028
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gary Hawkins wrote:
> 
> This is a spreadsheet, listing the elements and their properties,
> an Excel 97 .xls file:

What version? 

The file was not recognized by Quattro-Pro, Lotus 123v5, in their
conversion utility. Tried changing the '.xls' extension to '.xlt', to
'.xlw'. Tried reading the spreadsheet files in word processor programs
that recognizes spreadsheets. 
No luck.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 10:10:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20756;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:01:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:01:58 -0800
Message-ID: <068901be189d$ac3f1520$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <"aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:01:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"sJl6c3.0.445.LO4Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25030
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry to hear that, hold on.  I'll try to find out what's up by sometime
tomorrow.
Some people have been able to read it and I can.

-----Original Message-----
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties


>Gary Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> This is a spreadsheet, listing the elements and their properties,
>> an Excel 97 .xls file:
>
>What version?
>
>The file was not recognized by Quattro-Pro, Lotus 123v5, in their
>conversion utility. Tried changing the '.xls' extension to '.xlt', to
>'.xlw'. Tried reading the spreadsheet files in word processor programs
>that recognizes spreadsheets.
>No luck.
>
>-ak-
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 10:13:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22625;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:05:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:05:51 -0800
Message-ID: <068d01be189e$3bb3efa0$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Neodymium Magnets
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:05:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"5uBTC2.0.RX5._R4Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25031
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

If you're in the Seattle area, Radar Electric (upstairs) has gotten in a 
couple hundred Neodymium magnets, approximately the size of 
two or three dimes stacked on top of each other, for a dollar each.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 10:14:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11754;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b281f214bb74 [208.228.222.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:59:17 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"qq6eY2.0.Wt2.OF4Ns" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25029
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:43 AM 11/25/98, Akira Kawasaki wrote:
>November 25, 1998
>
>Horace,
>
>> It was I who diagrammed that photomultiplier resembling thing.
>
>Oops.

Yes - wouldn't want George to take the heat for such lunacy.  8^)

>
>>One difference is the electrons go *through* the plates.
>
>I do not see how a specific electron, facing a 'screen' having nominally
>a positive polarity, can travel through without being captured.


The electrons would *conduct* through the metal.  The "excess energy"
gained by acceleration to the untreated metal surface caused by induction
is transferred to each plate in the form of heat.  The idea was to put a
bunch of diodes in series.  Not really necessary, but I thought it would
demonstrate the principle better to see a bunch of inert plates in series
generating energy.  The plates are assumed maintained at constant voltage
difference (say by bleader resistors)  and, when in normal operation hot
enough to sustain emission.  In practice it might take filament heaters to
get them started I suspect, if operated in high vacuum.  Practically
speaking an ordinary single stage diode tube would work.  The extra stages
don't add anything to the COP, just allow higher voltage.  I am thinking
seriously now about trying calorimetry on an ordinary diode tube.


>(Except
>if the voltages are high enough, then the electrons will go through
>proportionate to the voltage).

Yes.

>And I doubt the emitting side of the
>screen, hot enough ("heated") to have a cloud of electrons (space
>charge) will allow this particular electron to travel through.


There is a gradiant across the entire apparatus.  The electrons will flow
if the device is hot.  It is just a bunch of diodes in series.  It has to
conduct, but unfortunately it doesn't have to produce the excess energy.


[snip]
>I'd say the fallacy is that if it does not work experimentally, and I
>doubt that it will, the rationale will have to be filled out to fit the
>results.
>
>-ak-

Yes, I doubt the excess heat notion as well.  However, that then brings us
back to the origninal question of how the energy balance is achieved in H2
adsorbtion into Pd or Ni.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 10:35:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01580;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:28:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:28:43 -0800
Message-ID: <365C4C47.D28E3687 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:28:23 -0500
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties
References: <060801be1861$f7b85660$a51a7acc temp> <365C34A8.6A5E@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RxYc22.0.BO.On4Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25032
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Akira Kawasaki wrote:

> Gary Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > This is a spreadsheet, listing the elements and their properties,
> > an Excel 97 .xls file:
>
> What version?
>
> The file was not recognized by Quattro-Pro, Lotus 123v5, in their
> conversion utility. Tried changing the '.xls' extension to '.xlt', to
> '.xlw'. Tried reading the spreadsheet files in word processor programs
> that recognizes spreadsheets.
> No luck.
>
> -ak-

Of course, I had no problem opening this file in Excel 97.  The
Excel 97
format works only in Excel 97.  There is a "Save As"  pull down
option
that will allow the file to be saved as both Excel 97 and 5.0
compatible
formats.  There are also several other format options.  If anyone
has a
particular format requirement, you can email me and I'll try to
convert it
for you.  It's a great table!

Terry Blanton
commengr bellsouth.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 11:18:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20019;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:15:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:15:31 -0800
Message-ID: <011101be18a7$55d3c6e0$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <conte teseo.it>
Subject: neutrons
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:10:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"QanW-2.0.ju4.JT5Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25033
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My basic theory of "Quarks" in a nucleus is as follows:

The quarks are circularized (length only)String-Like Particles with energy E
= kq^2/R where
k = 1/4*pi*eo, q = charge and R = the circle radius. For the Electron R =
2.81E-15 meters.
The circles (quarks) in a proton or deuteron or other nuclei have a radius
of about 4.5E-18 meters.

There are 5A - 2Z of these in any nucleus:

2A "up" or Positive

2A - Z "down" or Negative

 A - Z  Neutrinos

    Plus Z  Electrons (External)

For the Proton 5A - 2Z = 5 - 2 = 3 quarks with net charge = +1 and spin =
1/2

For the Deuteron 5A - 2Z = 10 - 2 = 8 quarks with net charge = + 1 and spin
= 1

For a Neutron, on1 (5A - 2Z = 5 - 0 = 5 quarks

ie., 2 up and 2 down, plus an antineutrino = 5

These can change radius or mass energy with angular momentum (spin) and
charge (+/-) q remaining constant.

Thus if an electron-proton interaction occurs
creating a neutrino-antineutrino pair and these
and the electron couple to the proton and emit
the neutrino, a "Light Neutron" is formed. This may be how the
Proton-Electron-Proton (PeP) reaction occurs in Stellar Burning.

In the case of an Electron-Deuteron collision
the Proton portion becomes a Neutron with the emission of a neutrino thus
forming Two "Light Neutrons" that can cause Cold Fusion heat and
transmutation reactions.

These reactions can occur in the Pons-Fleischmann Cell or the Griggs Pump or
sonoluminescent or other microcavitation effects where H2O or D2O is
strongly collided etc.

Visualized as rotating circles (or flywheels)for this model,all  nuclear
reactions such as electron capture, alpha and beta decay, and gamma
emission, and neutrino-antineutrino capture/emission, are easily understood.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 12:04:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04475;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:01:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:01:43 -0800
From: SciBorg8 aol.com
Message-ID: <4d9489a.365c613e aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:57:50 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Prototype Plans, Analysis
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Resent-Message-ID: <"dm_pB1.0.n51.d86Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25034
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Where can I find a standard for nondisclosure agreements? Is there a specify
format that one should use? 

Eric

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 12:16:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09808;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:14:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:14:18 -0800
Message-ID: <365C6503.8C6CD378 cwnet.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:14:05 -0800
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
Organization: IdeaWorks Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: virtual cathode: was Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
References: <v01530500b281f214bb74 [208.228.222.168]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"da4Qu.0.6P2.PK6Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25035
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Akira Kawasaki commented about electrons going *through* plates [ or anodes].
> >I do not see how a specific electron, facing a 'screen' having nominally
> >a positive polarity, can travel through without being captured. Except
> >if the voltages are high enough, then the electrons will go through
> proportionate to the voltage).

Along these lines but a little off topic, there is an older technology (20-30
years old at least) which employs electron beams to irradiate plastic monomers
for cross linking, such as for wire coatings. An example can be found at:
http://www.e-beam-rdi.com/products1.htm

These machines use an e-beam and a thin metal anode - which allow copious
electron pass-through at high voltage and fairly high efficiency. Also, under
certain operating parameters the machine can output much larger current to a
third collector electrode (albeit at much lower voltage) than the beam itself
possessed. This is a version of the well-known "cathode effect." The former
anode then become a virtual cathode and some interesting possibilities can be
conjured up that relate to overunity (well, not really overunity but a
environmentally friendly form of nuclear energy.

Check out patent # 4961880 "Electrostatic voltage excitation process and
apparatus," and related patents. What if a thin thorium anode could be
stimulated by an e-beam to produce intense gamma radiation by accelerated decay
? Yes, I know that "accelerated decay" is very controversial and is supposed to
be impossible. But  isn't it curious that many related patents came from weapons
labs and are owned by the government? (and their claims are substantial) .

If accelerated decay is in fact possible to the extent that these patents have
claimed, then a scenario for a cheap energy producer would follow if the gamma
radiation produced from a thin foil thorium anode in a properly designed machine
could probably be easily reabsorbed by its successor beam.  That is, as
electrons emerge on the opposite side of a virtual cathode, that emerging
electron cloud would likely have a high absorption cross-section for decay and
Bremstrahlung radiation. This might be repeated in stages or in a self-powered
circular "virtual betatron" to produce a relatively safe and cheap form of
nuclear energy.

If this procedure was implemented linearly stepwise in a cascading fashion, it
might resemble the apparatus described here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/2_21_98/timeline.htm
Yes, after seventy years, it should have been perfected before now, but who
knows? I'd say we have overlooked more important things.

Regards,
Jones Beene






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 12:27:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14455;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:25:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:25:00 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365C5A1D.26E8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:27:25 -0800
Reply-To: aki ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
References: <v01530500b281f214bb74 [208.228.222.168]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CjBTX2.0.nX3.RU6Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25036
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 25, 1998

Horace Heffner wrote:

<snip>
> However, that then brings us back to the origninal question 
> of how the energy balance is achieved in H2 adsorbtion into Pd or Ni.

Some hints:(from a fine 1950's book a library in its infinite wisdom
threw out a few years ago.)

1. Adsorption of hydrogen interstitially into the Pd lattice 'stretches'
the lattice structure which does not return back after the hydrogen is
discharged.

2. There are two phases in palladium adsorption between 100 to 120 deg.
C.. The beta phase causs the lattice distortion to occur which jumps up
the hydrogen adsorption volume (interstitially). 

3. Palldium hardness changes. Pure Pd had a Brinnel hardness of 45. In
the alpha phase of adsorption which approximated Pd4H, the hardness
jumped to 170. In the beta phase adsorption which approximated PdH, the
Brinnel harness dropped to 77. The alpha and beta hardness values did
not change after the hydrogen was exhausted out of the lattice.

4. On Pd degassed and annealed at 600 deg. C., the Brinnel hardness
returned to 47 of pure palladium.

5. Paramagnetism of palladium decreases upon adsorption of hydrogen (and
deuterium also).

6. It is assumed that hydrogen is completly ionized in the lattice,
having contributed its electron to filling the palladium D shell holes
(the source of paramagnetism) and reducing paramagnetism.

7. Palladium's paramagnetism is reduced to zero when .55 atoms of
hydrogen is adsorbed per atom of palladium.

8. When Pd is loaded to .66 atoms of hydrogen per atom of pd, it is
concluded that one sixth of the hydrogen remains uncombined between the
distended lattice. Deuterium is found to have the same diamagnetic
effect.

Discussions of the items listed have hardly been discussed in cf work.
They have to be considered when doing Cf work.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 13:27:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01458;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:26:22 -0800
Message-ID: <013701be18b9$a2544280$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:21:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"zJAZO.0.gM.-N7Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25037
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira wrote:

<Snip good stuff>

> Discussions of the items listed have hardly been
> discussed in cf work.
> They have to be considered when doing Cf work.
>
>-AK-

When the paper published in Germany ca. 1929 claiming that
absorption of "Hydrogen" (Deuterium wasn't discovered yet)
was withdrawn by the author because of the controversy, I would say that a
lot of study went into the Pd-Hydrogen
system.  :-)

Once the Pd is loaded enough, the Electron-Proton or Electron-Deuterium
"collisions" (Electromagnetic Interaction) on the positive potential side of
the Lennard-Jones Curve can create a neutrino-antineutrino pair:

           + |\   <-- Separation R -->
             | \
             |  \
 V         0 |----------------------------
             |    \  /
             |     \/
           - |

and thus by borrowing Mass/Energy from the Deuteron create
either a short-lived Dineutron or a "Light Neutron" pair
with the emission of a neutrino.

After that it's a Neutron Absoption/Transmutation problem
same as Hot Fusion, and with the number of Deuterons in
a given volume of Pd (or whatever) a lot more favorable energy ROI.

Same rules for Griggs Pump, Kinetic Furnace,
Microcavitation-Sonoluminescence or other as long as the
Electron-Deuteron Interaction dE = hbar/dt is made favorable.

Also, if the "collision" is too hard there may be diminishing returns.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 14:18:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17459;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:14:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:14:11 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:13:55 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
In-Reply-To: <068d01be189e$3bb3efa0$a51a7acc temp>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981125134039.29665B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9qksZ1.0.YG4.n48Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25038
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Gary Hawkins wrote:

> If you're in the Seattle area, Radar Electric (upstairs) has gotten in a 
> couple hundred Neodymium magnets, approximately the size of 
> two or three dimes stacked on top of each other, for a dollar each.

They are a pretty good deal.  If anyone wants to buy a large quantity of
these, I can go grab some and pass them along at cost plus shipping.  They
are about 0.55"  diameter, 0.1" thick disks, apparantly NIB material. 
They feel like around MGOe-30 in strength, no guarantees.  Radar Inc. will
sell at $0.50 each in quantity, so $20 would give you a stack like a "rod
magnet", 4 in. long and a hair over 1/2 in. diameter.  (Perfect for the
mechanical maglev project on my website!) Email me privately if
interested. 

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 14:34:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24240;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:29:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:29:23 -0800
Message-ID: <365CA00B.4A8E7420 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:25:47 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Marinov motor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LTfmH1.0.fw5.2J8Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25039
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo:

Has anyone actually figured out how the Marinov motor worked? (the one
with the copper ring and mercury pool) If so, how?

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 14:34:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25970;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:32:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:32:33 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:32:30 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: poultry anomaly
In-Reply-To: <199811252045.NAA04603 blackstar.physics.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981125142919.29665D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"uVK0b.0.iL6.1M8Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25040
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Z. Peacock / TAP-L wrote:

> The turkey shot out of the oven
> and rocketed into the air,
> it knocked every plate off the table
> and partly demolished a chair.
> 
> It ricocheted into a corner
> and burst with a deafening boom,
> then splattered all over the kitchen,
> completely obscuring the room.
> 
> It stuck to the walls and the windows,
> it totally coated the floor,
> there was turkey attached to the ceiling,
> where there'd never been turkey before.
> 
> It blanketed every appliance,
> It smeared every saucer and bowl,
> there wasn't a way I could stop it,
> that turkey was out of control.
> 
> I scraped and I scrubbed with displeasure,
> and thought with chagrin as I mopped,
> that I'd never again stuff a turkey
> with popcorn that hadn't been popped.

Happy Thanksgiving, USA users!


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 15:17:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12957;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:14:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:14:58 -0800
Message-Id: <199811252314.RAA23412 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:12:55 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"4qyN_3.0.NA3.oz8Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25041
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi again. I've been thinking about the best way to do this transaction. The
simple way, I think, would be for you send the magnets C.O.D. to the
following address:

Mitchell Jones
150 E. Whitestone #148-329
Cedar Park, TX 78613

Please ship by U.P.S. 5-day ground. U.P.S. will collect whatever amount you
tell them to collect, so when you ship, simply add up what you paid for the
magnets, plus whatever they charge you for the shipping, plus the $20 for
my vortex fees, and tell them to collect that total when they deliver the
package. The address above is a Mailboxes Etc. where my company (21st
Century Logic) maintains a box, so there will be someone there to hand over
my check to the delivery man. The check will have to be for the exact
amount, so you need to send me an e-mail after you ship the package. I will
then fill in the correct amount and turn my check over to the Mailboxes
Etc. people. Also, please include the U.P.S. tracking number in your
e-mail, so I can chase the thing down if it gets misrouted.

By the way, please place the magnets inside a tough plastic baggie, so the
magnets will not go flying if the package gets torn open, and pack very
securely. It would be a good idea to place my name and address on the
outside of the package and then truss the entire box up thoroughly with
transparent plastic packaging tape. With the label under the tape, it is
unlikely to be ripped off. (U.P.S. drivers are not as rough on packages as
the Post Office, but they are not gentle, either. I recently got a power
supply through U.P.S. shipment, and when it arrived the package was
literally in tatters.)

By the way, I cannot overemphasize how grateful I am that you are willing
to do this. I had wanted to use neodymium magnets for this project, but had
not yet succeeded in locating a supply at reasonable prices. Thanks again.

--Mitchell Jones



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 15:17:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13469;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:15:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:15:58 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:21:49 -0500
Message-ID: <01be18ca$60a9be30$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: <"dciHr2.0.9I3.j-8Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25042
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Kyle asked:

>Has anyone actually figured out how the Marinov motor worked? (the one
>with the copper ring and mercury pool) If so, how?
-
I believe the current consensus is that its operation is based
primarily on the Lorentz force, including the homopolar motor 
like component from the width of the ring. Even Jeff Kooistra
has come to agree with this, but Jeff still maintains that
his experiments show that the torus experiences greater forces
than the ring plus leads. I have an alternative explanation
for Jeff's results which depends on imperfect balancing of
the Lorentz forces on opposite sides of the ring.
-
Phipps has recently done an interesting experiment with the
Marinov configuration giving additional strange results which
he finds contradictory to some of his earlier conclusions.
-
My experiments show that the longitudinal or "Ampere" force exists,
but is in the opposite direction to the Lorentz force and much 
smaller in the standard Marinov configuration. I am still
doing experimental work with the longitudinal force.
-
Regards,
George Holz  - george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 15:36:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21065;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:32:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:32:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199811252332.RAA23616 mail11.jump.net>
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:30:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: mjones jump.net (Mitchell Jones)
Subject: Neodymium Magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"oK8PU3.0.295.QE9Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25043
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Sorry for the mis-sent post. The shipping instructions about the neodymium
magnets were intended to go to Bill via private e-mail, but my e-mail
program inserted the wrong address, and I failed to notice. The reason for
my interest is straightforward: I intend to build a Newman motor and see if
I can replicate the effect posted at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/nwmechts.htm. Again,
my apologies for the mis-sent post. --Mitchell Jones


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 15:56:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29156;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:55:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:55:30 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130501b28258e7062f [38.14.54.111]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:04:54 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gz15U1.0.L77.nZ9Ns" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25044
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Date: November 25,1998

Newman Energy Technologies Corp.
11445 East Via Linda, Ste. 2416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259

Dear Sirs,

Our company manufacture NdFeB & SmCo magnets in large quantity. We can
supply both sintered magnets and bonded magnets.  Many of our NdFeB & SmCo
magnets are supplied to the DC motor factories in the World. The prices of
our permanent magnets are very competitive.

If you need NdFeB & SmCo magnets, no matter they are sintered or bonded, to
make your DC motors, please contact us. We'll do our best to meet your
requirements.

Kindest regards.

Andy Wu
Magnetic Material & Component
Hangzhou Magnet Group
Tel: 86-755-382 1397
Fax: 86-755-383 3196
szmag999 public.szptt.net.cn

____________________________

To list members:

I received the email above from a magnet supplier.  I cannot vouch for the
quality of the above products, but thought it may be another useful magnet
source.

Regards,

Evan Soule'
Director of Information
NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
www.josephnewman.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 16:06:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA08780;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:57:12 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
cc: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Shanahan: McKubre evidence for recombination artifact 11.24.98
In-Reply-To: <365B619F.6E3C earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981125185421.28975A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sDuIF3.0.692.ui9Ns" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25045
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Folks,

	Can you tell us CF newbies the action and construction of the 
'recombiner' ?

	This goes ...I think... hand in glove with my questions on 
electrolysis in general;

	Q:

	a] how much power [volts and amps] yields how much H and O?

	AND

	b] if one were to burn the H and O ... how much power recovered

	NOW:

	c] where does the recombiner fit in?  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 16:48:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14347;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:46:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:46:49 -0800
Message-Id: <199811260044.TAA21153 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: poultry anomaly
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:51:43 -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: <"RIY2Z1.0.5W3.uJANs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25046
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Really *fowled* the place up!

> > that I'd never again stuff a turkey
> > with popcorn that hadn't been popped.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving, USA users!
> 
> 
> ((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) )
)))))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST
website
> billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird
science
> Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L
webhead-L
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 16:54:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA17039;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:52:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:52:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:52:41 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
In-Reply-To: <v02130501b28258e7062f [38.14.54.111]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981125163227.11000A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"a10rU3.0.9A4.TPANs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25047
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Evan Soule wrote:

> Andy Wu
> Magnetic Material & Component
> Hangzhou Magnet Group
> ____________________________
> 
> I received the email above from a magnet supplier.

I did too.  Several times.  Spread over many months.  Without my
requesting it.  And which added to the hundreds of other spams my account
receives every month.

Those "chinese magnets" people are spammers. I will NEVER deal with them.
Spam works, that's why we receive so much of it.  If you hate spam, then
take care to make the spamming behavior backfire on those who use it.

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 17:28:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA28250;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:26:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:26:28 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:26:25 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [off topic] interesting book
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981125170936.11000B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZVfY_3.0.1v6.3vANs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25048
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I stumbled across a possibly interesting book, GREAT FEUDS IN SCIENCE. 
I'm going to pick up a copy because it covers the Weltner (plate
tektonics) controversy.  Ammo for the "skeptic^2"?    (Skepticism^2 being
critical thought aimed at the behavior of self-described skeptics.)
Haven't read it yet.

   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471169803/

The amazon page has several reviews, including the one below.
Can anyone here suggest sources for more history on Weltner?  And Gene M.,
if this is a good one, perhaps IE could include a review?

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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


Marcello Truzzi (soc_truzzi online.emich.edu) from Grass Lake,
   Michigan , July 30, 1998 5 out of 5 stars
   excellent popular debunking of "story book" science history.
   Hellman presents us with a well written and carefully researched
   series of entertaining profiles about some notable debates in science
   (both old and current). These are informative and fun to read, but
   perhaps their greatest value for lay readers is in revealing the
   all-too human sides of the combatants. This discredits the "Story
   Book" version of science so often given in texts wherein noble
   scientists are portrayed as unblemished heroes fighting to bring light
   into the darkness against a purely non-scientific opposition. Here we
   see that even great scientists often squabble with one another and
   that they seldom epitomize rationality and objectivity.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 17:44:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31965;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:43:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:43:25 -0800
Message-ID: <017801be18dd$86ea65a0$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: An Experiment To Do, When You Get Up The Nerve
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:38:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2dT_91.0.Np7.y8BNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25049
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Bill Beaty's Exploding Turkey, suggests an experiment.

Take a common brick and bake it for several hours at 550-600 F. Then soak it
for 12 hours in a hot-saturated aqueous solution of Borax or Boric Acid,
then place it in the most powerful microwave oven you can find and Nuke It.

Then Run Like Hell, because it might Nuke You! :-)

OTOH, you can do calorimetry by dropping it in
an insulated pail of water.

WITH SAFETY DISCLAIMER!

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 18:03:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA05073;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:01:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:01:37 -0800
Message-ID: <365CD1CA.3B5A6C50 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:58:02 -0800
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: An Experiment To Do, When You Get Up The Nerve
References: <017801be18dd$86ea65a0$c057fad0 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hResl3.0.BF1.0QBNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25050
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Frederick J Sparber wrote:

<snip experimental proposal>

You're dangerous! ;) Especially around the holidays: boron basted
turkey, neutron emitting side dishes, and not to forget the electrolyzed
cranberry sauce!

For those of you who celebrate it, happy Thanksgiving.
Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 18:40:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA15769;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:38:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:38:32 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:38:28 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: An Experiment To Do, When You Get Up The Nerve
In-Reply-To: <365CD1CA.3B5A6C50 sunherald.infi.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981125180612.15887B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"CbU8M2.0.Js3.eyBNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25051
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

> boron basted turkey, neutron emitting side dishes, and not to forget the
> electrolyzed cranberry sauce! 

Does Kervran-style bio-transmutation cause occasional SPC (Spontaneous
Poultry Combustion?)  So engineer the Incandescent Chicken process to make
self-cooking holiday turkey.  No.  Forget it.  Too easily weaponizable!  :)

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 18:57:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20164;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:56:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:56:17 -0800
Message-ID: <365CC493.76E1 lcia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:01:40 -0500
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: Neodymium Magnets
References: <199811252314.RAA23412 mail11.jump.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gFiMA3.0.ww4.GDCNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25052
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
  Magnets cannot be shipped by UPS.
  Ron Brennen

> Hi again. I've been thinking about the best way to do this transaction. The
> simple way, I think, would be for you send the magnets C.O.D. to the
> following address:
> 
> Mitchell Jones
> 150 E. Whitestone #148-329
> Cedar Park, TX 78613
> 
> Please ship by U.P.S. 5-day ground. U.P.S. will collect whatever amount you
> tell them to collect, so when you ship, simply add up what you paid for the
> magnets, plus whatever they charge you for the shipping, plus the $20 for
> my vortex fees, and tell them to collect that total when they deliver the
> package. The address above is a Mailboxes Etc. where my company (21st
> Century Logic) maintains a box, so there will be someone there to hand over
> my check to the delivery man. The check will have to be for the exact
> amount, so you need to send me an e-mail after you ship the package. I will
> then fill in the correct amount and turn my check over to the Mailboxes
> Etc. people. Also, please include the U.P.S. tracking number in your
> e-mail, so I can chase the thing down if it gets misrouted.
> 
> By the way, please place the magnets inside a tough plastic baggie, so the
> magnets will not go flying if the package gets torn open, and pack very
> securely. It would be a good idea to place my name and address on the
> outside of the package and then truss the entire box up thoroughly with
> transparent plastic packaging tape. With the label under the tape, it is
> unlikely to be ripped off. (U.P.S. drivers are not as rough on packages as
> the Post Office, but they are not gentle, either. I recently got a power
> supply through U.P.S. shipment, and when it arrived the package was
> literally in tatters.)
> 
> By the way, I cannot overemphasize how grateful I am that you are willing
> to do this. I had wanted to use neodymium magnets for this project, but had
> not yet succeeded in locating a supply at reasonable prices. Thanks again.
> 
> --Mitchell Jones

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 19:04:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA21913;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:01:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:01:11 -0800
Message-ID: <06c201be18e9$041e6520$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:00:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"bs3np1.0.JM5.tHCNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25053
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>are about 0.55"  diameter, 0.1" thick disks, apparantly NIB material.
>They feel like around MGOe-30 in strength, no guarantees.  Radar Inc. will
>sell at $0.50 each in quantity, so $20 would give you a stack like a "rod

I appreciate the detail.  It appears they are thinner than I first thought,
but strong.  Just getting them apart is an ordeal.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 19:18:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA26832;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:12:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:12:31 -0800
Message-ID: <06e901be18ea$9b597e60$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:12:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"TJrjN.0.7Z6.VSCNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25054
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Can you make a 1 inch dia NdFeB sphere and how much $$?

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets


>Date: November 25,1998
>
>Newman Energy Technologies Corp.
>11445 East Via Linda, Ste. 2416
>Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
>
>Dear Sirs,
>
>Our company manufacture NdFeB & SmCo magnets in large quantity. We can
>supply both sintered magnets and bonded magnets.  Many of our NdFeB & SmCo
>magnets are supplied to the DC motor factories in the World. The prices of
>our permanent magnets are very competitive.
>
>If you need NdFeB & SmCo magnets, no matter they are sintered or bonded, to
>make your DC motors, please contact us. We'll do our best to meet your
>requirements.
>
>Kindest regards.
>
>Andy Wu
>Magnetic Material & Component
>Hangzhou Magnet Group
>Tel: 86-755-382 1397
>Fax: 86-755-383 3196
>szmag999 public.szptt.net.cn
>
>____________________________
>
>To list members:
>
>I received the email above from a magnet supplier.  I cannot vouch for the
>quality of the above products, but thought it may be another useful magnet
>source.
>
>Regards,
>
>Evan Soule'
>Director of Information
>NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
>www.josephnewman.com
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 19:40:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06367;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:39:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:39:56 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130501b2828dda7618 [38.14.54.7]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:49:23 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"cYsmd2.0.MZ1.AsCNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25055
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In case you did not note the address below, your request should be sent to:

Andy Wu -- szmag999 public.szptt.net.cn

ERS


Gary Hawkins wrote:
>Can you make a 1 inch dia NdFeB sphere and how much $$?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Neodymium Magnets
>
>
>>Date: November 25,1998
>>
>>Newman Energy Technologies Corp.
>>11445 East Via Linda, Ste. 2416
>>Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
>>
>>Dear Sirs,
>>
>>Our company manufacture NdFeB & SmCo magnets in large quantity. We can
>>supply both sintered magnets and bonded magnets.  Many of our NdFeB & SmCo
>>magnets are supplied to the DC motor factories in the World. The prices of
>>our permanent magnets are very competitive.
>>
>>If you need NdFeB & SmCo magnets, no matter they are sintered or bonded, to
>>make your DC motors, please contact us. We'll do our best to meet your
>>requirements.
>>
>>Kindest regards.
>>
>>Andy Wu
>>Magnetic Material & Component
>>Hangzhou Magnet Group
>>Tel: 86-755-382 1397
>>Fax: 86-755-383 3196
>>szmag999 public.szptt.net.cn
>>
>>____________________________
>>
>>To list members:
>>
>>I received the email above from a magnet supplier.  I cannot vouch for the
>>quality of the above products, but thought it may be another useful magnet
>>source.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Evan Soule'
>>Director of Information
>>NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
>>www.josephnewman.com
>>
>>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 20:27:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24485;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:26:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:26:58 -0800
Message-ID: <000601be18f4$fd5beee0$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties ++PLUS++
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:26:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"DRyBO2.0.V-5.HYDNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25056
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Of course, I had no problem opening this file in Excel 97.  The
>Excel 97 format works only in Excel 97

This ought to cover the bases:

http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/elements.htm

It's now an HTML page with a few choices:

---
    The Elements - Spreadsheet

        Excel 5.0/95 Format

        Excel 97 Format

        HTML Page

        Text File In Browser (Using <pre> tags)

        Text File - Tab Delimited for download. ('Right click > Save As...'
or 'Shift > Click', etc, or just display in browser and then 'Save As')
---

I finally got over my laziness and figured out again how to
use the NOWRAP tag so the 'HTML Page' now looks
much better.

Again, I expect to be deleting this stuff soon.

Hope it's useful,

Gary

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 20:29:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26142;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:28:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:28:54 -0800
Message-ID: <19981126043202.19109.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:32:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"mQTQC3.0.OO6.6aDNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25057
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Re energetics of H2 entry into Pd:

The H in Pd is ionized, in that it does not have a tightly bound
electron. However, the proton or deuteron (nucleus) is surrounded by
the sea of electrons, and that sea is distorted by the H+ charge such
that it averages out to one extra electron (above the natural electron
density of the Pd) surrounding the proton. This equivalent electron is
not bound to the H+, and it is not as close on average as a ground
state H electron. However, it is not at infinity, either, so the
equivalent" electron is not at full ionization potential "away" from
the H+. 

Another effect that affects ions in solids is that the dielectric
constant is not that of vacuum, but higher. The energy required to
remove an electron from its ground state to infinity is reduced from
the vacuum ionization potential by 1/(diel. const.). For H2O, which
has a dielectric constant of about 80, this effect reduces the
ionization potential of H from 13.6 eV to 0.17 eV. That's a big part
of the reason that ions exist happily in H2O. I am not sure how this
plays out in a metal, where the concept of dielectric constant changes
considerably. I only had a couple of weeks intro to this stuff in
undergrad EE. It probably involves a perturbation to conduction band
electrons and gets very quantum mechanical.

BTW, I think the evidence used to conclude that H is ionized in Pd and
what its equivalent charge is comes from electromigration
experiments---how the transport of H along a Pd wire depends on
electric field and current.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Nov 25 22:35:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22323;
	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:33:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:33:47 -0800
Message-ID: <01cf01be1906$1657bee0$c057fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 23:29:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Guapc.0.fS5.APFNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25058
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice

Michael Schaffer wrote:


>
>Re energetics of H2 entry into Pd:
>
>The H in Pd is ionized, in that it does not have a tightly bound
>electron. However, the proton or deuteron (nucleus) is surrounded by

>
>Another effect that affects ions in solids is that the dielectric
>constant is not that of vacuum, but higher. The energy required to
>remove an electron from its ground state to infinity is reduced from
>the vacuum ionization potential by 1/(diel. const.). For H2O, which
>has a dielectric constant of about 80, this effect reduces the
>ionization potential of H from 13.6 eV to 0.17 eV.
I am not sure how this
>plays out in a metal, where the concept of dielectric constant changes
>considerably. I only had a couple of weeks intro to this stuff in
>undergrad EE.

This is covered in a book by Julius Adams Stratton; Electromagnetic Theory,
McGraw-Hill,1941, on the "dielectric constant of metals".

Regards,   Frederick

>==
>Michael J. Schaffer
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 05:28:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA05193;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:27:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:27:09 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365D49D5.6C98 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:30:13 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: ghawk ekimo.com
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties ++PLUS++
References: <000601be18f4$fd5beee0$a51a7acc temp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nzGIv1.0.3H1.iSLNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25059
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

November 26, 19998

Gary & Vortex,

Happy Thanksgiving Day. 'A National Day of Mourning' demonstration
(perhaps misplaced) for some Amaerican Indian group out in the Northeast
area I hear.

Thanks Gary for your additional effort on the spreadsheet. It worked on
two versions you submitted. Excel 5 and Text,(tab delimited). I have
converted it to a 123V5 format. With your permission, I would like to
add it as a supplementary additional sheet to my own isotope study sheet
as reference.

Who did the compiling of the information into the spreadsheet? Lots of
work there. I find use of a spreadsheet in science studies very useful.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 05:31:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06358;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:30:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:30:23 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981126133748.00f0488c popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:37:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Shanahan: McKubre evidence for recombination artifact
  11.24.98
Resent-Message-ID: <"mYpH1.0.EZ1.jVLNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25060
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 06:57 PM 11/25/98 -0500, you wrote:

>	Q:
>
>	a] how much power [volts and amps] yields how much H and O?

I heard that Irving Langmuir discovered that lead amalgam electrodes will
produce nascent (atomic) hydrogen from water (around 1912). 


Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 05:36:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA09809;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:35:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:35:46 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981126134308.00ed2be8 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, 26 Nov 1998 08:43:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties ++PLUS++
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fz1Sn.0.BP2.oaLNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25061
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 04:30 AM 11/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
>November 26, 19998
>
>Gary & Vortex,
>
>Happy Thanksgiving Day. 'A National Day of Mourning' demonstration
>(perhaps misplaced) for some Amaerican Indian group out in the Northeast
>area I hear.

As it so happens, one of the gentlemen who participates in these events is
Jeff White. He is also known as Armani. The Tall Ships collection at the URL
below is his work.


Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 05:41:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA11687;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:40:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:40:20 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <365D4CD5.5AF ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:43:01 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: ghawk eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties ++PLUS++
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"syq7o1.0.Ts2.4fLNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25062
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 26, 19998
 
Gary & Vortex,
 
Happy Thanksgiving Day. 'A National Day of Mourning' demonstration
(perhaps misplaced) for some Amaerican Indian group out in the Northeast
area I hear.
 
Thanks Gary for your additional effort on the spreadsheet. It worked on
two versions you submitted. Excel 5 and Text,(tab delimited). I have
converted it to a 123V5 format. 
With your permission, I would like to add it as a supplementary
additional sheet (with attribution) to my own isotope study sheet as
reference.
 
Who did the compiling of the information into the spreadsheet? Lots of
work there. I find use of a spreadsheet in science studies very useful.
 
-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 06:11:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA21528;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:10:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:10:24 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:07:24 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <365D6117.8BD09679 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:09:27 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov motor
References: <365CA00B.4A8E7420 sunherald.infi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"R4aLr.0.FG5.G5MNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25063
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Kyle,

There would be a very scientific report about the M. motor on the INE site. But I checked here but not find it now,  I read it. Author of the experiment and on its theoretical analysis said it based on Aharonov-Bohm Effect. What is exactly is the virtual 
current loops present inside the p.m. columns interact with the external current loop. and push each others. What is most interesting here, no back induction is generated and actually no electrical energy transferred for mechanical work is done. (as I rec
all)

I will try find the exact link of the article.

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> 
> Vo:
> 
> Has anyone actually figured out how the Marinov motor worked? (the one
> with the copper ring and mercury pool) If so, how?
> 
> Kyle R. Mcallister

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 06:21:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24854;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:20:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:20:30 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:17:34 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <365D63AD.5A797973 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:20:29 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor
References: <365CA00B.4A8E7420 sunherald.infi.net> <365D6117.8BD09679@verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1mMa3.0.C46.kEMNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25064
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

hamdi ucar wrote:
> 
> Hi Kyle,
> 
> There would be a very scientific report about the M. motor on the INE site. But I checked here but not find it now.


Not here but at Aperion (http://www.vif.com/users/apeiron/current.htm)

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.: Observations of the Marinov Motor 
http://www.vif.com/users/apeiron/v05n3phi.pdf

Regards,
 
hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 06:27:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA27107;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:26:22 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:23:32 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <365D6523.761B1DC4 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:26:43 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortexb <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Vortex-digest #704 needed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ynrGO.0.Td6.EKMNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25065
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi,

Due to mail server problem I did not received vortex postings on monday. 
Could anybody repost me the Vortex-digest #704 ?

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 07:27:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08754;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:26:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:26:24 -0800
Message-ID: <365D7330.55C1 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:26:40 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: Storms: Shanahan: CF debates  11.25.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"uoVrR.0.i82.WCNNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25066
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 11.24.98
  Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:28:13 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> The muon catalyzed reaction has no bearing when the r1-r2 potential
> becomes periodic.

> >> 1.  The lattice does not have to be perfect!
> >>
> >> 2.  The deuteron ion band states only interact with themselves; which is
> >> where approximate periodic order is required!
> >>
> >> 3.  The idealization of T=0 is not required!
> >>
> >> 4.  Please try to read before you blurt out meaningless comments!
> >>
> >> 5.  Please try to do science, instead of pontificating!
> >>
> >> 6.  Please look at my comments to Kirk Shanahan, and my comments to you!
> >
> Absolutely; I am an employee of the Naval Research Laboratory.  The
> theory has been examined in the lab at length by condensed matter
> physicists, nuclear physicists, and  several many-body/quantum field
> theorists. Qualified individuals from Cal Tech and MIT have also
> critiqued and examined the theory.  The theory has been both warmly and
> coldly received by these audiences.  The primary area of disagreement
> has been (and continues to be) whether or not the wave functions can
> possess Bloch symmetry with respect to the r1-r2 dependence.  However, I
> note in passing that an important reason for this probably is that we
> have not emphasized the origin of the associated (self-induced)
> potential and the role of timescale in the evolution of this potential.

So we finally get to the ASSUMPTION that is key to Scott Chubb's entire
case, and he actually acknowledges that other people, fully as
knowledgeable as he about condensed matter physics, find reason to
question whether the "wave functions can possess Bloch symmetry with
respect to the r1-r2 dependence."

It is precisely that assumption that I have been calling into question,
and I believe that I can give quite a large number of reasons, based on
the actual physics of the situation, for saying that this key assumption
is invalid. That being so, the Chubb theory has no merit, unless and
until Scott Chubb can address each of these points.

First let us have a clear picture of just what is required.  We are
attempting to encompass within one problem two very different domains. 
The domain Scott's theory generally addresses is that of the PdD lattice
which has a lattice spacing of several Angstroms, right?  In that domain
"coherence" of a wave function implies some regularity as you step
through the lattice in steps defined by the unit cell spacing R. 
Perfect regularity is, of course, an idealization.  We tend not to have
perfect lattices.  We have lattices with defects such as vacancies and
we have crystals of finite size such that at some point the regularity
runs into a grain boundary, and that is the end of coherence.  As a
result coherence, and its effects, gets modulated.  It dies out as a
function of distance.

Also we don't have a perfectly rigid lattice.  We have a lattice at
finite temperature which means there are lattice vibrations moving each
and every lattice point about in a busy, random dance.  As a result the
distance between one deuteron and the next is not precisely R but is <R>
with a bunch of fuzziness tacked on.  As long as the fuzziness is not
too great (compared to R), some of the coherence Scott relies on can
persist, and, as he says, it may make sense to continue the T=0
approximation.  Finite temperatures do not destroy all the coherence
effects.  But it is important to note that some coherence effects may
be wiped out more rapidly than others.  Evidence to support an assertion
for some coherence effects is not evidence for total coherence with
respect to all parts of the separated wave functions.

So what does it mean to say that the internal nuclear wave function
possesses Bloch symmetry relative to the lattice spacing?  Remember we
are not talking about points in space.  We are talking about particles
that move.  In the case of the nuclei there are two types of motions
being considered (under the Born-Oppenheimer separation).  The motion of
the center of mass of each nucleon is possibly governed by a potential
which is periodic with period R.  As a result the wave function for that
motion will be periodic (at least to some approximation) with the same
period and may be coherent over distances of several R.  That is the
deuteron ion band state Scott Chubb describes.  It may well possess the
coherence he assumes, at least in some approximate sense.  Temperature,
lattice defects, and crystal size will mess that up to some degree, but
his approximatations may remain valid.

Now, shift you vision to something which operates on a much smaller size
scale -- that is the portion of the nuclear wave function I call
"internal." Again coherence in that wave function implies that you can
go some number of wave lengths away from r=0 and still predict what the
phase of the wave function will be.  Recalling that the coordinates are
relative to the coordinate for the center-of-mass motion, we have to
recognize that the thermal jiggling about is still in the picture, but
now the change in size scale takes on added significance.  When the
nucleus moves, its internal wave function moves, and the position
relative to the next lattice position changes, not by a fraction of a
wave length but by a few zillion wave lengths.  I suggest that some loss
of coherence is to be expected. In fact, it seems to me that total loss
of coherence is really what we have to assume.

One observable feature of the internal nuclear wave function is the
spatial orientation of the nuclear spin.  If we are to have the sort of
coherence Scott suggests, one requirement will be that nuclear spins
will be alligned. That is to say the spin state of the nuclei must be a
pure state.  However, there is nothing about the PdD lattice that gives
much to define a prefered spin orientation.  The energy differences
between states of differing spin orientation are very small.  It's those
energy differences that get involved when you do nuclear magnetic
resonance, for example, so we can learn a great deal about them in all
sorts of materials.  In magnetic fields of a few tesla, the resonance
frequency for dueterons is, off the top of my head, a few megahertz. 
What is that frequency when there is no external applied magnetic
field?  Better yet, what is the resonance energy relative to the thermal
energy of the lattice?

I am suggesting that we have experimental evidence to show that the
spin wave function is randomly oriented in any real PdD lattice at
finite (300K) temperatures.  This is not something subject to any
assumption by Scott Chubb.

Now, let me proceed to something else we know must be true about this
system about which Scott has not had much to say.  I note that the
ion band deuterons come from a population of deuterons that do not
possess Bloch symmetry -- all those ordinary deuterons in the lattice
and outside on the surface of the crystal.   Since, experimentally,
it seems that electrolysis above some threshold current is required
for any effect, we must be, in fact, discussing a system in dynamic
equilibrium in which the deuterons which get lost from the ion band
state through some misadventure are constantly replaced by other
deuterons.  That is to say there must be some relaxation time for
the ion band state.  Leave it alone, cut off the supply, and after
some characheristic decay we will have no more ion band deuterons.
Why else would Scott Chubb limit himself to only 10^-5 deuterons
per unit cell?  Why not pump that density right on up to the big
bang?

What that tells us is that it is possible for a deuteron to leave
the ion band state and to revert back to being an ordinary deuteron,
something which does not possess Bloch symmetry as it is bound
to a specific location in or about the lattice.

Now, let us contemplate the 4He nuclei that Scott indicates are being
formed anytime there is an overlap between the Bloch wave functions
for two deuterons.  I would have guessed that such a 4He nucleus
could have decayed by neutron emission, but Scott says that can't
be because it has Bloch symmetry.  Just suppose the 4He loses its
Bloch symmetry by departing from the lattice while it is still
excited?  Is there any reason to assume that the characteristic
relaxation time for ion band alphas is greater than that for
deuterons?  Is there any reason to assume that one particular mode
of decay for the ion band state 4He is totally dominant?

I see those as some good reasons to question Scott Chubb's assumption
of Bloch symmetry with respect to nuclear coordinates.

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: He and heat 11.24.98
  Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:14:21 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

> > Well, once again I see my name being taken in vain by someone claiming
> > to be an advocate of "good science."  Let's just see if we can, in fact,
> > get Ed Storms to practice what he preaches.
> >
> > Rich went out on a limb to propose a specific, detailed hypothesis which
> > Ed Storms declares is impossible.
>
> If Dick wises to be objective in this debate, I suggest he evaluate
> Rich's explanation in the same manner he uses to evaluate mine.

Rich is perfectly capable of defending his own hypotheses without my
getting involved, and my objections to your CANR notions do not sink or
swim depending on how well Rich is doing when he suggests a non-nuclear
alternative. Just as you think you can demonstrate that what Rich has
proposed is impossible, I think I can demonstrate that your proposed
CANR process is impossible -- if you would actually propose one.

> Many hypothesis are presently being tested experimentally, funding
> permitting. Advocates of various theories, who have access to
> experimental facilities, are testing their ideas.  Dick's ignorance of
> these efforts has no relevance to the discussion,and I do not have the
> time to describe these efforts, some of which people wish to keep
> private for the time being.  On the other hand, it is my impression that
> Dick really only wants a theory to test against his theoretical ideas.
> Any experimental result which conflicts with his theoretical ideas is
> routinely rejected.

You are correct.  I am not foolish enough to believe that I can discuss
experimental results that have not been revealed.  I do, however, find
it strange to see you continually attempting to buttress your claims by
data which you don't present.

> > When it comes to the specifics of a nuclear reaction process, where has
> > Ed Storms and his extensive reviews of the field brought us?  I gather
> > he is now asserting that some form of an (n, alpha) reaction process
> > is likely to account for the observed helium and excess heat.
>
> Just so there is no confusion, I am willing to explore every
> possibility.  However, I accept the argument that fusion between two
> isolated deuterons, as particles, is unlikely.  I have NOT rejected the
> idea that two deuterons could interact as waves, as advocated by the
> Chubbs.  In addition, the possibility exists for more than one process
> to operate simultaneously.  However, for the sake of discussion, it is
> best to examine one process at a time. I simply suggested to Dick that
> we might profit by examining alpha emission rather than continue to
> discuss the Chubb model, which he is already debating with Scott.  I
> will answer the detailed questions Dick raised later.  However, I do not
> like the confrontational approach Dick uses.  This will get us nowhere
> if it continues.

Oh, so the Storms objection to my replies is a matter of style rather
than content.  He expects to be able to say that "skeptics" are being
"unscientific" without getting any sort of rise out of me.  Let me make
it clear to you, Ed Storms, as a professional scientist I find your
continued suggestions that your opposition is being "unscientific" to be
highly insulting.  If you want to move this discussion to a higher plane
you should be willing to acknowledge that our position has merit.  It is
true that ordinary matter as we normally encounter it is stable against
nuclear reaction processes.  It is not "unscientific" to point this out.

> > First, I believe, we should appreciate just where things stand with
> > respect to the experimental evidence for helium as a reaction product
> > as opposed to a simple, troublesome contaminant.  I refer to a
> > review article by Ed Storms dated June 27, 1998, which is indicated
> > for publication in Infinite Energy.  Surely this has the latest
> > and greatest evidence to support Ed's current reaction hypothesis.
> >
> > That evidence appears in Fig. 7 and is the results of Miles et al.
> > (1996) and Bush and Lagowshi (1996).  It is a plot of the
> > number of "atoms helium/watt-sec" versus "excess power (watt)".
> > There are 10 data points displayed with, of course, their error
> > bars on two axes.
> >
> > Let us first examine the "excess power" coordinate.  The values
> > of excess power are generally clustered around 0.05 Watts with
> > errors of +/- 0.02 Watts.  There is but one datum with a power
> > level of roughly 0.12 Watts.  These are hardly strong evidence
> > for there being any real "excess power", especially in light
> > of the limitations of isoperibolic calorimetry and a tendency
> > for Miles and Bush to overstate the precision of their measurements.
> > I simply don't find this very convincing evidence for any sort of
> > exotic nuclear reaction process.
>
> Once again the evidence is in the mind of the beholder.  I evaluate the
> work and find the heat values to be credible, although small. Dick
> rejects the claims because he believes both Miles and Bush overstate
> their precision. Such a conflict can not be resolved by rational
> argument.  Either a person believes a competent scientist, based on the
> published data and discussions with the individuals, or a person does
> not.  Dick chooses not to believe based on his assertion that the real
> error completely overlaps all the data, making the apparent behavior a
> result of random processes.

You are simply wrong!  Such conflicts can be resolved by rational
argument. Indeed they must be so resolved if we are to conduct this
discussion scientifically.  I have asserted that Miles and Bush
overstate their experimental precision.  That is a question of fact that
can be addressed scientifically, provided you are willing to reexamine
how it is that they arrive at an estimate of their experimental
precision. The question that Ed Storms introduces into the debate which
cannot be addressed scientifically, and is therefore, I believe,
inappropriate to a scientific discussion is whether we are dealing with
"competent scientists".  My data must stand independent of my resume,
and so must the claims of Miles and Bush stand independent of their
competence as scientists.  I will futher object to Ed Storms attempts to
radicalize my position.  I most certainly do not insist that "real error
completely overlaps all the data."  I generally assume, unless otherwise
informed, that error bars indicate the variance sigma for a guassian
distribution assumed to describe the random behavior of the data.  When
that is an appropriate interpretation of the "error", the "correct"
result may lie outside the range of error so indicated
with a probability of about 1/6, as I recall.  I'll allow for that.

> > Now on to  the "helium" coordinate of this graph.  Normal practice
> > when doing a correlation analysis is to make a graph which is
> > linear with respect to both variables to determine the slope
> > of a straight line which provides a best fit to the data.  However,
> > the Fig. 7 plot is semi-log covering two decades on the helium
> > axis.  Those of you familiar with the fine art of plotting data
> > will recognize that the use of a log scale serves to compress
> > the range of the data with a side benefit that the variability
> > of result and size of the error bars seem less significant.
>
> This is not the only reason a semi-log plot is used, as every scientist
> well knows. Admittedly, the data are scattered. For this reason, any
> conclusion must be rather general.  The plot makes several general
> conclusions possible, i.e. the individual data points obtained by two
> different studies are consistent within their errors,  the amount of
> helium is consistent with the amount of heat within the error, and the
> apparent energy per reaction is below 23 MeV by between a factor of 2
> and 5, depending on how one wishes to handle the error.

I do not object to the use of a semilog plot, but merely point out that
some care must be excercised in reading such plots.  In this case, I
believe that it is appropriate to place a second line on the graph, a
line hich is consistant with my hypothesis that the helium yield is not
causally connected to the excess power level.  Because the helium yield
has been normalized to the power level by division before ploting my
line would have a downward slope, falling by a factor of three over the
range in which the power level rises by a factor of three.  Because of
the semilog plotting such a line can be put through all the data,
provided you understand what the error bars indicate.  While this is
more of a subjective judgement, I think my line is as good a fit to the
data as is the one drawn by Ed Storms.  Now I did mention the (0,0) data
which is not plotted.  I dare Ed Storms to put that data on the graph,
with proper error bars!  There is something about a zero in the
demoninator that may get him in trouble, should he accept my challenge.

> > Taking the error bars into consideration, my reading of the data
> > in Fig. 7 is that the amount of helium detected may well be
> > independent of the power level. If you lump the data around 0.05
> > watts and treat it as a single measurement to be compared to the
> > result at 0.12 watts one could make a case for saying that the
> > lower power yields helium at almost twice the scaled rate for the
> > higher power level.  That is just about what you would expect to
> > see if the increased power had absolutely no effect on helium
> > production.

>
> If Dick is going to do a proper evaluation, I suggest he start with the
> original data, which he has, rather than making arbitrary changes in my
> plot. Both Miles and Bush, in their papers, plot the amount of He
> against amount of heat. In both cases, a clear increasing relationship
> is seen. There is absolutely no basis for lumping the 0.05 watt points
> together. Does Dick believe this approach to data evaluation is good
> science?

OK, don't lump the data.  Leave it as you have plotted it.  I was just
sort of thinking out loud as to how I eyeball a best fit to the data,
but nothing in my argument requires any replotting.  Sorry, if I upset
you on that point.

How can I start with the original data?  I was commenting on your
review, so it is the plot in the paper for which you are the author that
is under discussion.  I had assumed that you had taken the plot from a
presentation or presentations by those responsible for that data.  It
appears I was mistaken,  You made this plot to support your position, so
I think it is appropriate for you to defend it.  You say that their data
show "a clear increasing relationship" between helium yield and excess
heat.  What I am pointing out is that no such relationship is
demonstrated.  Rather, what is demostrated is that the relationship
between helium yield and excess power is just incidental.

It is, in fact, the way you chose to present these data and the bold
horizontal line you drew as if to desribe these results that may lead
a casual reader to accept your assertion that there is some clear
relationship between these two experimental parameters.  I am not
just a casual reader.  I attempt to dig a bit deeper.

> Many alpha emissions have energy in the 4-5 MeV range.  The Miles-Bush
> data are consistent with such energy at the extreme of the error. In
> addition, a significant, but unknown, amount of He will remain locked in
> the palladium. Until all the He is accounted for, no firm conclusion
> about the amount of energy can be made.  Surely, Dick knows this from
> his scientific background.

Of course, I know some things from my scientific background.  I know,
for example, that turning huge numbers of 4-5 MeV alphas loose in the
PdD lattice is one of the last things Ed Storms wants of contemplate. 
Those suckers are highly disruptive to the usual order of things!  I
also know something about why it is that common, ordinary alpha decays
generally do involve 4 to 5 MeV energies, and it is likely that one of
these days we will need to discuss this further.

> > So less energy per event requires more helium (or other
> > reaction product.) It should also be acknowledged that
> > the higher the energy available, the more likely it becomes
> > that something such as gamma decay or neutron emission
> > will be involved.  What Ed Storms considers "possible" is
> > largely colored by what he does not know. It is a rather
> > dangerous position from which to be making pronouncements
> > as to what may be scientifically reasonable about a
> > CANR process and opposed to something chemical and atomic.
>
> And what Dick considers impossible is also colored by what he does not
> know. We are in the same boat and it does no good to debate which part
> of the boat has the greater number of leaks. We need to find a way to
> repair the boat.

Let me suggest that the boat is going to sink in spite of your best
efforts to keep it floating.  Your emotional attachment to this
particular boat is, again, one of those things that is not appropriate
to a scientific evaluation of the evidence.  Yes, I am relatively
ignorant of things chemical, but I thought we were engaged in a
discussion about a nuclear reaction process.  Did I stumble into the
wrong discussion?

Dick Blue

Subject:  Re: Shanahan: McKubre evidence for recombination artifact
11.24.98
  Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:30:49 -0500 (EST)
  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:    rmforall earthlink.net

Kirk Shanahan,

Since you now have "all the data", how about indulging me by plotting
all the runs that yield "no excess heat" according to some definition.
Are there enough such runs, perhaps 20 is enough, to provide a
histogram? Then examine that histogram to determine a variance for those
data to see whether the variance is consistant with the estimated
precision of the measurements.  I get a little nervous when we are
talking about "excess heat" in the range of fractions of a watt.

While on the subject, perhaps a word about measurements of "negative
excess heat" is in order.  Since excess heat is determined by
differencing two experimental quantities which have error bars it should
be possible to arrive at a negative result, right?  In fact, if it's
possible to set up a run which produces no nuclear reactions we should
get a negative excess roughly half the time.  It seems strange to have
to point this simple fact out, but the average of the runs which do not
induce CANR cannot be zero, unless there are as many negative excess
heat measurements as positive ones.  Do you see that in the McKubre data
or is there, perhaps, some bias toward the positive side?

Dick Blue




































     > different from what triggers the effect, because in the surface
region a
> number of competing effects can be at work.)
>
> >When you stated the key assumptions which underlie your theory, I recall
> >that you placed T=0 at the top of the list.  When I call that assumption
> >into question you now make a big point of saying that having T=0
> >is not really all that important.  Which way would you have it?
>
>
> I emphasized the T=0 limit as an important one for providing rigorous
> statements about defining the underlying rules of the theory, but I also
> (hope) I have stressed that the theory applies at finite temperature.
> At T=0, rigorous simplifications are present that may disappear at
> finite temperature.
>
> >The question, of course, is just how coherent the nuclear wave functions
> >likely will be over distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  I
> >don't see that you have done anything to demonstrate that the coherence
> >must be unusually high for those deuterons in the ion band state.  You
> >have made some form of "selfconsistancy" argument, but is that not based
> >on your having left a good deal of physics out of the problem?
>
> Discussion of the "self-consistency" argument and the underlying
> potential are areas that require clarification.  What has been left out
> or not left out relates to how well the system has been prepared to
> mimic the situation depicted by the theory.  The theory illustrates that
> there does exist a situation where a particular scenario involving
> release of low energy 4He in surface regions with heat can occur.
>
> >In any case, I am not here to dispute whether your overlap between ion
> >band deuterons might lead to a nuclear reaction.  What I continue to
> >call to question is precisely what the outcome of said reaction will
> >be.  If you do not address that question, you have no theory worth
> >beans.
>
> Two points:  first off, "just providing a framework" for understanding
> how reaction can occur without high energy particles is a step forward.
> Secondly, regardless of this fact, the theory does provide rules for the
> associated outcome, given a particular set of initial conditions.  I
> guess I am reacting to the phrase "[that the] theory [is not] worth
> beans;"  I would say that these two points indicate the theory has
> value.
>
> >Now why is it so difficult to get you to describe, in some
> >detail, how you do address the reaction physics?     Dick Blue
> >
> >Subject: Re: Storms: Shanahan: Chubb: band state theory 11.19.98
> >  Date:  Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:44:58 -0500 (EST)
> >  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
> >    To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> >
> >> Your understanding of my views is correct but not quite complete.  The
> >> 'special states of matter' require a very high deuterium concentration
> >> to form.  This high concentration only exists near the surface. The
> >> depth of the high concentration region will depend on the nature of the
> >> palladium and the rate at which deuterium is being applied to the
> >> sample. The region has depth and will have bulk properties. The area of
> >> the active region will depend on the frequency of surface penetrating
> >> cracks.  Some active regions many be only a few square microns while
> >> other areas might be a few square millimeters.  This view in no way
> >> conflicts with the Chubb model.  The scale on which the model is applied
> >> is variable but the model is unchanged.
> >>
> >> Ed Storms
> >
> >Here is a point which we should be able to clear up.  Scott Chubb
> >presents a theory for the reaction d + d -> 4He.  He considers only that
> >specific reaction.  Ed Storms suggests that this reaction is not, in
> >fact, responsible for the generation of excess heat.  He proposes an
> >alternative reaction involving neutron transfer followed by alpha
> >emission.  Scott Chubb does not address any reaction of that sort.
>
> I do not believe neutron transfer plays a significant role.  However, if
> disorder occurs suddenly (which could occur with crack formation) in the
> surface region, it may be possible to initiate exotic reactions
> involving neutrons.  But the relevant physics dictates (at least in my
> mind) that such phenomena probably are very limited and certainly are
> not dominant. (This result is also consistent with measurement.)
>
> >Dick Blue
>
> SCOTT CHUBB
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 09:57:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03989;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b28346668e6c [208.228.222.118]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:57:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Resent-Message-ID: <"jHi57.0.E-.ROPNs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25067
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:29 PM 11/25/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>This is covered in a book by Julius Adams Stratton; Electromagnetic Theory,
>McGraw-Hill,1941, on the "dielectric constant of metals".

Do you have the book?  If so, does it give a dielectric constant for Pd and Ni?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 10:49:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA27309;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:44:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:44:45 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:42:01 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <365DA191.D68BD64 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:44:33 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor
References: <365CA00B.4A8E7420 sunherald.infi.net> <365D6117.8BD09679@verisoft.com.tr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2Z5Zg2.0.Yg6.R6QNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25068
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

hamdi ucar wrote:

>What is most interesting here, no back induction is generated and actually no electrical energy transferred for mechanical work is done. (as I recall)

That was incorrect again. Marinov motor generate back-EMF and could work also as generator. No-back-EMF was Marinov's claim and falsified in this paper.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 10:51:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29943;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:50:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:50:43 -0800
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <ec62a40e.365da248 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:47:36 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Jones kink hypothesis details
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236
Resent-Message-ID: <"6HaTx3.0.nJ7.3CQNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25069
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Good, convincing discussion, Jed.

Bob Briggs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 11:31:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05749;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:28:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:28:54 -0800
Message-ID: <000a01be1972$623725a0$7557fad0 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:24:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"RzV3L1.0.lP1.rlQNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25070
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in the Pd lattice

Horace wrote:


>At 11:29 PM 11/25/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>This is covered in a book by Julius Adams Stratton; Electromagnetic
Theory,
>>McGraw-Hill,1941, on the "dielectric constant of metals".
>
>Do you have the book?  If so, does it give a dielectric constant for Pd and
Ni?

No, It is in the possession of Horace Poteet (one very sharp EE)at Sandia
National Labs. He faxed me the values for Copper that show the dielectric
constant equations and did a little computer program that  gives wave
velocity vs frequency. I haven't talked to Horace in months. I'll ask him
next week, if he hasn't retired yet.

Regards,   Frederick
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 13:23:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26364;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:22:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:22:58 -0800
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <dfa66da8.365dc64e aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:21:18 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Book about history of conflicts in science
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236
Resent-Message-ID: <"jdTpb2.0.sR6.oQSNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25071
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I lost the name of the book that was recommended.  Would you please post it
again?  Thanks!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 13:41:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29647;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:40:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:40:31 -0800
Message-ID: <006d01be1985$5376ec40$a51a7acc temp>
From: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Gary Hawkins" <ghawk eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheet, The Elements and Their Properties ++PLUS++
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:40:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"GFaij.0.5F7.FhSNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25072
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Who did the compiling of the information into the spreadsheet? Lots of
>work there. I find use of a spreadsheet in science studies very useful.
>
>-AK-
>

Credit SMI Corporation, they pulled the information together in their
Periodic Table program.  I did 111 copy and paste operations into
Word and then ran a bunch of Word macros on it, and then pasted
into Excel.

I highly recommend download and then purchase of SMI's Periodic Table
Program.  It contains a lot more information than the spreadsheet, for
example, you can choose two elements and then see how strong the
ionic and covalent character of the bond would be between them.

The program contains specific gravity, decay trees, graphs, atomic % to
weight % conversion, a radioactive dose rate estimator, and on and on.
And let's not forget, element 112.

I was bored one day last week so I started copying and pasting from an
older version of their program.  Finally just now I looked them up on the
web and only just now downloaded their latest version:

http://www.smisoftware.com/Html/PeriodicTable/index.htm

Check it out.

Also not to be missed, another useful tool of theirs, "Convert It!":

http://www.smisoftware.com/Html/ConvertIt/index.htm

"The groups are: temperature, distance, mass, volume, angle, area, power,
energy, pressure, time, force, density, velocity, money, acceleration,
angular acceleration, angular velocity, capacitance, charge, current,
voltage, inductance, magnetic flux, illuminance, luminance, specific heat,
thermal conductivity, torque, viscosity, coverage, SI units, radioactivity,
radiation dose, absorbed radiation dose, and radiation density. "

Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Technology                 Tomorrow's Technology Today
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                      Seattle, WA
--------------------------------------------------------------

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Nov 26 20:13:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA31162;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:11:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:11:20 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:11:18 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Book about history of conflicts in science
In-Reply-To: <dfa66da8.365dc64e aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981126200800.11791D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"MCd-73.0.qc7.ePYNs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25073
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 BriggsRO aol.com wrote:

> I lost the name of the book that was recommended.  Would you please post it
> again?  Thanks!

It's below.  ALso, you can usually find the most recent vortex-L messages
at Escribe:   http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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



I stumbled across a possibly interesting book, GREAT FEUDS IN SCIENCE. 
I'm going to pick up a copy because it covers the Weltner (plate
tektonics) controversy.  Ammo for the "skeptic^2"?    (Skepticism^2 being
critical thought aimed at the behavior of self-described skeptics.)
Haven't read it yet.

   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471169803/

The amazon page has several reviews, including the one below.
Can anyone here suggest sources for more history on Weltner?  And Gene M.,
if this is a good book, perhaps IE could include a review?

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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


Marcello Truzzi (soc_truzzi online.emich.edu) from Grass Lake,
   Michigan , July 30, 1998 5 out of 5 stars
   excellent popular debunking of "story book" science history.
   Hellman presents us with a well written and carefully researched
   series of entertaining profiles about some notable debates in science
   (both old and current). These are informative and fun to read, but
   perhaps their greatest value for lay readers is in revealing the
   all-too human sides of the combatants. This discredits the "Story
   Book" version of science so often given in texts wherein noble
   scientists are portrayed as unblemished heroes fighting to bring light
   into the darkness against a purely non-scientific opposition. Here we
   see that even great scientists often squabble with one another and
   that they seldom epitomize rationality and objectivity.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Nov 27 21:31:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA17541;
	Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <365F8855.657C earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 22:21:26 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: didn't get any Vortex-L posts  11.27.98
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981126200800.11791D-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jz5f41.0.zH4.mbuNs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25074
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Nov. 27, 1998   Hey, guys, I didn't get any Vortex-L posts today.  I had
unsubscribed from Vortexb a few days ago.  Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 07:28:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA10615;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 07:25:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 07:25:45 -0800
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <ad1405c8.3660158e aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:23:58 EST
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Cc: billb eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED TO VortexB LIST
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84
Resent-Message-ID: <"vnpIt3.0.nb2.vN1Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25075
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill,

Thanks for the automatic subscription to VortexB

Are subscribers to Vortex-L also automatically subscribed to Vortcor?

If not, how does one subscribe to Vortcor?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 09:46:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07684;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:44:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:44:21 -0800
Message-ID: <3660356C.C5E70218 fc.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:39:57 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields fc.net>
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Prototype Plans, Analysis
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <10ac409a.365b3089 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LXFOC1.0.-t1.qP3Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25076
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

SciBorg8 aol.com wrote:

> I was wondering if any one knew of any resources as to how plans
> for a
> prototype could be analyzed? Analysis for basic functionality.
> This is coming
> from the perspective of an amateur.
>
> And how do you address having un-patented concepts reviewed for
> integrity? I'm
> sure this is something of an issue.
>
> I was thinking maybe there were some type of engineering services
> out there
> somewhere. A service where you send them your plans and they
> review them,
> analyze, etc. Any and all ideas would be helpful. Thanks
>
> Eric

--

Eric,

Check "Invention Engineering" on our website, It may be what you're
looking for.

If it is, I'd like to hear from you.

--
John Fields,                   Austin Instruments, Inc.
El Presidente                  Austin, Republic of Texas
"I speak for the company"      http://www.austininstruments.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 12:48:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17216;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:47:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:47:40 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:47:35 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
cc: vortcor-list eskimo.com
Subject: Vortcor...
In-Reply-To: <ad1405c8.3660158e aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981128124334.19464E-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FrTYO1.0.iC4.g56Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25077
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 Tstolper aol.com wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> Thanks for the automatic subscription to VortexB.
> Are subscribers to Vortex-L also automatically subscribed to Vortcor?

Yes, at the moment.  Scott is in the process of setting up an independant
account at eskimo.com.  I don't know if the name "vortcor-list" will
need to change or not.

See above, one copy of this message should originate from
vortcor-list eskimo.com (or vortcor-digest).

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


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 13:13:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22107;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:13:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:13:09 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981128212004.011fe9ec 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: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:20:04 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Statistics
Resent-Message-ID: <"ognFK3.0.HP5.bT6Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25078
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vo;

I just saw these statistics of the weather conditions for 1998 so far:

$89,000,000,000.00 in damages
39,000 people killed
300,000,000 people displaced
>From 239 disasters

Gee, it looks like Mt. Etna has been acting up lately.

I sent my 'turkey sermon' message to President Clinton, Vice President Gore,
the First Lady, Mrs. Gore and Mayor Menino. I'll run interferance. Hey
world, I'm researching and building ANTIGRAVITY and FREE ENERGY devices!
Come and get me. (don't worry, I used the html email page gateway. shhhhh)

Actually, if they did come and get me, they would be putting me out of my
misery. Without exception, my positive energy efforts to those around me are
repaid with treachery and deceit, present readership excepted of course. The
only creature who isn't mean to me is my kitty. The Falun Gong philosophy
predicts and explains the reactions and responses I get in my life
experience. The bad acts are described as resulting in black energy forms
that hangs around thereafter. It occurred to me that if this is true, and
just about everyone in the world acts bad by reflex or habit, the Earth must
have a good sized layer of this black energy slime on it. I wonder what that
means? Oh well, just a thought.

I have a lead on a real Viktor Schauberger device and am asking if it were
possible to measure the dimensions to make a working model. A couple of wavy
plates, some shield covers, drive gear, shafts, and motor, slap it together
and your ready to spin 'er up. Keep your fingers crossed people! Anybody
have access to a 3D CAD scanning digitizer?

Regards;
Dennis



Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 16:59:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA10673;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:58:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:58:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 20:00:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hTNKP.0.hc2.6n9Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25079
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 01:30 PM 11/24/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>M. Swartz writes:
>Actually there is a hypothesis which can account for some of the
>	differential temperature.  There was an inline heater and  even
>	an inline pump (another 25 watts, greatly in excess of the
>	applied input electric power if memory serves).
>
>The in-line heater was not used. It was required to boost the inlet
>temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
>air is quite cold. 


 Is was "not used"?  ?  This is not accurate.

  First, a diagram http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/image/ceti4.gif
shows it WAS present.

  Second, Rothwells own timely comments indicate it was on
even as his "flow measurements" were beginning.

  From JedRothwell Delphi.com  CompuServe 72240,1256
                             December 13, 1995
   "CETI Demonstrates 1,300 Watt Cold Fusion Reactor
   Produces 1000 to 4000 Times Input
    Last week at the Power-Gen '95 Americas .....The
   control cell was replaced with a joule heater for the 
  remainder of the conference, which raised the water temperature 
   the normal, expected amount."
   "Later on, ...I confirmed the cold fusion inlet temperature 
    by turning off the control side joule heater
     and taking a 250 ml sample from the control outlet pipe."



  So this leads to the following:

  1- Why does Jed claim a joule heater -- captured in figures, and
his own text -- "was not there"?

  2- How many watts was this actual heater dissipating?
 
  3- What was time course of the heat, prior to and during
the experiment?

  Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Nov 28 21:09:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08645;
	Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:07:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:07:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:06:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YBsrx.0._62.ZQDOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25080
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I wrote: "the in-line heater was not used. It was required to boost the inlet
temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
air is quite cold. Mitch Swartz writes:

	Is was "not used"?  ?  This is not accurate.

	First, a diagram 	http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/image/ceti4.gif
shows it 
	WAS present.

Ah, we are talking about two different heaters. I was referring to the 50
watt heater in the reservoir. I think Swartz refers to the joule heater
installed in the dummy cell in parallel with the CF cell. The reservoir
heater was present but not used, the dummy cell heater was used to
demonstrate that a few watts of power do cause a measurable Delta T with
this system.


	2- How many watts was this actual heater dissipating?

It could not have been more than 5 watts, the capacity of the power supply.

 
	3- What was time course of the heat, prior to and during the experiment?

The course was as shown in the diagram.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 29 05:06:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA18280;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 05:04:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 05:04:21 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981129080552.00835100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:05:52 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eA0YX1.0.XT4.KPKOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25081
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 10:06 PM 11/28/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>I wrote: "the in-line heater was not used. It was required to boost the inlet
>temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
>air is quite cold. Mitch Swartz writes:
>
>	Is was "not used"?  ?  This is not accurate.
>
>	First, a diagram 	http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/image/ceti4.gif
>shows it 
>	WAS present.
>
>Ah, we are talking about two different heaters. I was referring to the 50
>watt heater in the reservoir. I think Swartz refers to the joule heater
>installed in the dummy cell in parallel with the CF cell. The reservoir
>heater was present but not used, the dummy cell heater was used to
>demonstrate that a few watts of power do cause a measurable Delta T with
>this system.


  So there were not "no" heater, not one heater, but two.


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


>	2- How many watts was this actual heater dissipating?
>
>It could not have been more than 5 watts, the capacity of the power supply.


   THe total dissipation other than electrical input to the
cell according to people who were there was
85 watts with your estimate of 25 watts for the aquarium pump.
It does NOT seem reasonable that the heaters dissipated 5 watts and the
measuring equipment dissipated 55 watts, does it?  Were these initial
reports wrong?

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

>	3- What was time course of the heat, prior to and during the experiment?
>
>The course was as shown in the diagram.

    Mr. Rothwell's claim thata diagram shows the time course
of heaters in an experiment is nonsense.

    What was the time course of each of the heaters, Jed?
One can only presume that the heaters were on to account for the
85 watts dissipated.  Diagram is 
http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/image/ceti4.gif

    Unless these numbers become internally consistent, 
Mitchell Jones' comments and analysis stands as quite
reasonable.

     Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 29 05:25:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA22530;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 05:23:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 05:23:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981129082500.00835990 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:25:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7IYKu2.0.sV5.JhKOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25082
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 10:06 PM 11/28/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>I wrote: "the in-line heater was not used. It was required to boost the inlet
>temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
>air is quite cold. Mitch Swartz writes:
>
>	Is was "not used"?  ?  This is not accurate.
>
>	First, a diagram 
>	http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/image/ceti4.gif
>shows it WAS present.
>
>Ah, we are talking about two different heaters. I was referring to the 50
>watt heater in the reservoir. I think Swartz refers to the joule heater
>installed in the dummy cell in parallel with the CF cell. The reservoir
>heater was present but not used, the dummy cell heater was used to
>demonstrate that a few watts of power do cause a measurable Delta T with
>this system.


  I previously wrote:
     So there were not "no" heater, not one heater, but two.

  This may not be theentire story.  There may have been three heaters
including two by the "tower".  From the description made at the time.

   "Pix 2. Close up of control box and reservoir. Meter on top of 
control box shows .66 ac amps. Volts were a bit high, at 140
VAC, so total input when this picture was taken was 92 W. Meter 
on right is cell volts, it reads 9.15. Cylindrical objects 
hanging in the reservoir water in front of filter are
auxiliary pre-heaters. I believe the small one is 50 W and 
the large one 100 W. The pump is driven by the 50 W magnet 
motor in the black section below. This is a standard
heavy duty aquarium pump. The electrolyte return hose (top right) 
fits loosely into the connector on top of the reservoir. 
The loose fitting lets the effluent electrolysis gas out,
and the muffin fan blows the gas into the wide world as 
it cools off the fluid in the coiled tubes."
    

    The time course of BOTH auxilliary heaters and
other reservoir heaters is important for reasons of
possible interference, heat contamination, etc.

     Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 29 14:05:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24826;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:03:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:03:39 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:55:42 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hudson Seminar and CF history
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b27d01047c51 [208.228.222.173]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981129165242.5427D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"VpkQ63.0.q36.wISOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25083
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,


	FYI:

	An associate was in possession of a small sealed vial of 
purportedly genuine monotomic material....   He ahd been asked to 
ascertain if it could be used as a room temperature  superconductor for 
commercial applications and was referred to me.   I asked him to
perform a simple test....  to put the vial over a strong Nd Fe B 
permanent magnet to see if any portion of the powder exhibited the 
Meissner effect....  it did not.

			JHS




On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 3:29 AM 11/21/98, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> [snip]
> >Here is a quote from one of David Hudson's seminars.
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >>we got a copy of Pons &
> >>Fleischman's paper before they publicly announced. It was sent to
> >>GE for their review.
> 
> This sounds incredible.  I have never seen any reference to preprints or
> other information being available prior to the press release.  Maybe
> Fleischmann or Pons will have someting to say about that at the next ICCF?
> Others here who have been more involved with the early events or have had
> access to the CF archives at Cornell may have something to add on that.
> There were not even any referees involved.
> 
> 
> >>It was their electric chemical catalyst
> >>division who works with Palladium. They handed it to me and said,
> >>"Dave, look here. What's coming out here?" Pons and Fleischman
> >>were putting a Palladium electrode in this Lithium Deuterate
> >>solution. Lithium is the third element on the Periodic Table.
> >>Lithium will dissolve into the Palladium just like Hydrogen. It's
> >>tiny and it goes in between the metal-metal bonds, just like
> >>Hydrogen, and it weakens the s-p bonding and little by little,
> >>the Palladium begins to disaggregate from the other palladium
> >>atoms and go to the high-spin state.
> 
> 
> There is no static mechanism, or mechanism present in a CF cell, that I
> know of which can store significant energy by changing the nucleus spin
> state.  Long term runnning CF cells are reported to produce so much excess
> energy that a magnetic field of that energy would be detectable blocks
> away.
> 
> 
> >>What they have reported is
> >>that after several days, there is this tremendous release of
> >>energy and it's more energy than the amperage that went into the
> >>sample. What they haven't figured out is that a superconductor
> >>feeds on the magnetic field, not on the amperage.
> 
> The magnetic field in a superconductor only rises to match the externally
> applied magetic field, which in the case of CF expriments is very small.
> Even if the CF cell were placed in a strong magnetic field, the energy in
> the superconductor would be limited by the critical field strength, at
> which value the the superconductor stops superconducting .  Near that point
> the amount of current that can be supported by the superconductor
> *diminishes*.
> 
> 
> >>And so
> >>literally, when they pull the voltage potential in it, there's
> >>no amperage flowing. The amperage only puts the Lithium into the
> >>Palladium. That's the only purpose of the amperage is to
> >>electroplate the Lithium onto the Palladium and cause the metal-
> >>metal bonding of the Palladium to break and form what Pons and
> >>Fleischman call, and this is their scientific technical term,
> >>"the white crud on the surface of the Palladium." And that white
> >>crud is the superconductor. And it literally builds up energy.
> >>Builds up energy. Kind of like you think of a capacitor building
> >>up energy.
> 
> 
> There is no mechanism described which can build up large amounts of energy
> in a thin white film on the Pd electrode.  This is somewhat like saying
> trains store energy.  I am going to store up the energy to run the United
> States for a day in trains.  There may be grains of truth, but it all falls
> apart if you even have the slightest fell for the real numbers.
> 
> 
> >>It's flowing more and more light and it's feeding on
> >>the magnetic potential. More and more light, more and more light,
> >>until it reaches what's called HC2, the greatest amount of
> >>magnetic field that superconductor can sustain. and at that
> >>point, it collapses.
> 
> 
> This sounds nonsensical.  There must be some wild new theory behind this.
> It is certainly not conventional.  Some here disagree, but I'll agree with
> Carl Sagan here that the extraordinary claims require extraodinary proof.
> Not only are the claims extraordinary, but so is the vocabulary.  On the
> web page referenced below, there is an extensive new vocabulary being used,
> where various existing conventional terms are used in new and bizarre ways.
> Not only is there a bunch of new or abused terms, there are lots of new
> but unexplained effects anticipated.
> 
> I have some experience with blue, orange, and white glow in electrolytic
> experiments, but I see no reason to invoke nuclear reactions or
> superconductivity to explain them when simple oxidation reactions will do.
> 
> 
> 
> >>        In another paper it says "We will find
> >>that a superconducting material like Palladium is going into a
> >>state that is much like superconductivity when it causes the cold
> >>fusion reaction."
> 
> 
> The "superconducting state" referred to here is not like any other I know
> of.  For one thing it is above room temperature, so discovery of this state
> in 1989 would have been worthy of a Nobel Prize.  There has been plenty of
> time for replication and confirmation.  There is no condition present in CF
> to create a known superconducting state in the conventional sense, i.e.
> paired electrons acting in accord with the BCS Theory.  I suppose a vacuum
> is superconducting, in the sense that it has no resistance, but a vacuum
> does not exhibit robustly the effects we associate with superconductivity,
> like the Meissner effect.  Superconductivity in terms of one or a few atoms
> has no meaning in the conventional senseto my knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> >> And they're figuring this out. They're seeing
> >>what 1 am describing,  but they don't understand this, yet.
> >>Palladium specifically can become superdeformed. Palladium will
> >>come apart by just looking at it wrong. So certainly 'when this
> >>flux collapse occurs, you'll get all sorts of elements that
> >>shouldn't have been there before.
> 
> 
> Even if energy could be stored in the nucleus, and even though palladium
> deforms, no method is suggested here for using that energy to achieve the
> exchange of nuclear components.  This reminds me of the cartoon of a guy at
> the blackboard with a giant flowchart where all paths from start to end
> flow through a central block labeled "Then a Miracle Happens".
> Unfortunately, this is not an unusual attribute when it comes to CF
> theories, so even if there is no more info on this David Hudson is not
> alone.  8^)
> 
> 
> >
> >http://monatomic.earth.com/
> >
> >Well people, what do you think? I say this is it. This is how you get the
> >weird particles. It took over 5 million bucks (as I recall) in research to
> >discover monatomics. Comments?
> 
> 
> In looking through the above web page I see no credible theory, or
> experiments demonstrating anything to substantiate the claims or even the
> vocabulary being used.  It is another world.  The only thing giving the
> page any credibility that I can can find are the pointers to various
> university physics teaching resources - which are not at all germane,
> especially to the decription which misleads you to believe you are being
> referred to a "monatomic" experimental resources page, when all it is is an
> undergraduate physics page.  This looks like a cheap ruse that would only
> work on the most unsophisticated interested parties, i.e. potential
> investors.
> 
> If there were some good conclusive experiments posted demonstrating free
> energy or even superconductivity, as per the "monatomic" theory, one of the
> crucial ingredients of the posed ideas, then this might be interesting.
> 
> There does not seem to be any emphasis on independent replication or
> disclosure, real warning signals for something that has been around a long
> time yet is still being hyped.  Maybe I missed something?
> 
> I somebody asked me for money on this basis I would run away, run away!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 29 16:12:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27342;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:09:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:09:03 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981130001556.011763ac 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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:15:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hudson Seminar and CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"hJFWh1.0.4h6.U8UOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25084
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 04:55 PM 11/29/98 -0500, you wrote:

>	FYI:
>
>	An associate was in possession of a small sealed vial of 
>purportedly genuine monotomic material....   He ahd been asked to 
>ascertain if it could be used as a room temperature  superconductor for 
>commercial applications and was referred to me.   I asked him to
>perform a simple test....  to put the vial over a strong Nd Fe B 
>permanent magnet to see if any portion of the powder exhibited the 
>Meissner effect....  it did not.

(snip)


1. Was this material from David Hudson?

2. The material must be exposed to certain conditions, it has been reported,
before the magnetic field eminating from one's hand will produce a Meissner
effect. A NdFeB magnet is certainly too much magnetic field and will
oversaturate.

3. As I have said before, it takes 2 - 3 months of study before one begins
to get a handle on the subject of monatomics.

Biological Sensitivity to Weak Magnetic Fields Due to 
    Biological Superconductive Josephson Junctions 
    [REF00021] 
    Physiological Chemistry and Physics 5, 1973 
    Reference: pp. 173-176 

        Summary: Various species of organisms can detect weak magnetic
fields from .1
        to 5 gauss. Indirect evidence suggests that electron tunneling may
occur across
        junctions between superconducting micro regions in living systems.
Man made
        superconducting Josephson junctions have been fabricated with magnetic
        sensitivity as high as 10-11 gauss. It is suggested that
superconducting Josephson
        junctions in living systems may provide a physical mechanism with
more than
        enough sensitivity to explain the observed responses of organisms to
weak
        magnetic fields.

Regards;
Dennis


Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Nov 29 18:47:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10072;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:44:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:44:15 -0800
From: knobbie usa.net
To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, vortcor-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortcor...
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:25:15 GMT
Reply-To: knobbie usa.net
Message-ID: <366b017a.1458560 smtp.tm.net.my>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981128124334.19464E-100000 eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981128124334.19464E-100000 eskimo.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/168888
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZMKCF3.0.CT2.-PWOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25085
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Yes, at the moment.  Scott is in the process of setting up an independant
>account at eskimo.com.  I don't know if the name "vortcor-list" will
>need to change or not.
>
>See above, one copy of this message should originate from
>vortcor-list eskimo.com (or vortcor-digest).


Dear sir,

	Would you mind kindly change my
	subscription to vortcor-digest
	from the vortex-l list, please?

	There are just too many acrimonous
	exchange in the vortex list.

	I am interested in scientific
	research, but I do not have the
	time for flames.

	I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
knobbie
knobbie usa.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 02:23:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA06917;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:21:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:21:33 -0800
Message-ID: <001001be1c4a$8df8c100$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Montmorillonite Clay For Long Livers and O-U Applications ;)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:16:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE1C0F.D1F2F3C0"
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: <"cTG3F.0._h1.j6dOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25086
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_0004_01BE1C0F.D1F2F3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Montmorillonite Clay  home


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20

            Symmetry Products with Montmorillonite Clay:

                NutraPack

                BotanaCleanse

                Skin Renewal Caplet

            As a dietary supplement, users report improvement of health =
in many areas such as more energy and stamina, reduced arthritis pain, =
stronger and faster growing nails, thicker hair, stronger teeth, fewer =
cavities, healing of
            bleeding gums, faster healing of wounds or fractures, fewer =
colds, smoother complexion, better weight control,
            and an overall healthier body.
           =20
            Dr. Ralph Cinque has written, in an article in The Life =
Science Health System, that vitamin and mineral supplements, because =
they are fractionated, are treated as toxic waste in the body. Minerals, =
in particular, in an unnatural form, can accumulate and cause harmful =
effects. Yet, clearly we need minerals today as never before, because of =
our impoverished soils. An increasing number of doctors and scientists =
believe that our bodies can only function optimally when given whole =
food nutrients.
           =20
            Most supplements only offer a few of the many essential =
minerals necessary to sustain good health. An average
            mineral analysis of Montmorillonite contains no less than 67 =
minerals, including the vital trace minerals.
           =20
            The mountain in Utah which contains this rich source of =
Montmorillonite is an ancient bed long believed by the
            Native American medicine men to be mystical in nature, and =
rumors abound about its miraculous properties. Recently it has been =
recognized and utilized by the cosmetic industry and by soil experts, =
who value it as an exceptionally good agricultural enhancement: crops =
grow faster, taste better, and are more resistant to disease.=20
            Montmorillonite contains a balance of minerals in their =
natural colloidal form, making it easily assimilated. There is much =
interest in colloidals today, but most colloidal minerals available are =
artificially produced in a laboratory, and many are manufactured with =
harmful solvents. Nothing could be better for you and your family than =
the kind of colloidal minerals Nature herself makes.
           =20
            The minerals present in montmorillonite enhance the =
production of enzymes in all living organisms.
            The importance of enzymes cannot be emphasized enough: Dr. =
Edward Howell, the father of modern enzyme
            research, has written that enzyme deficiency is a =
significant cause of premature aging and the development of
            numerous degenerative diseases.
           =20
            Now, the only place you can get these minerals in the United =
States is from a prehistoric valley in southern Utah that according to =
geologists 75 million years ago has 60-62 minerals in the walls, in the =
floor of that valley and those trees and the grasses in that valley and =
that forest took up all the metallic minerals and made colloidal =
minerals in their tissues.
           =20
            Here's what people are saying, "Hey, my arthritis got =
better", "My diabetes got better", "early cataracts went
            away", "My white hair turned black again", "My knee =
arthritis got better" and so on ...
           =20
            Users of Montmorillonite report improvement of health in =
many areas such as energy, stamina, reduced arthritis
            pain, stronger and faster growing nails, thicker hair, =
stronger teeth, fewer cavities, healing of bleeding gums, faster healing =
of wounds or fractures, fewer colds, smoother skin complexions, better =
weight control, and an overall healthier body.
           =20
            Satellite pictures have found five deposits of =
Montmorillonite Clay around the world. These sites were all found
            at high altitudes and the people living in those areas have =
very long lives.
           =20

                These five Montmorillonite deposits are located:
                1. Himalayas - China, Tibet
                2. Urals - Pakistan
                3. Caucasians - Georgia (Russia) Armenians
                4. Andes - Peru, Ecuador
                5. Wasatch - Utah USA

            Nobel prize nominee Dr. Joel D. Wallach notes that the =
people who live in these areas (except Utah where there is no local =
population) live to be 120-140 years old.
           =20
            The reason for their longevity is that their crops are =
fertilized with Montmorillonite, the biggest and certainly the
            most accessible deposit in the world is the one in Utah.=20

           =20
            =20


------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE1C0F.D1F2F3C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Montmorillonite Clay facts and =
information</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.go-symmetry.com/m-clay.htm><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC =
"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<META content=3D"Mark Borcherding" name=3DAuthor>
<META content=3D"Facts & Information on montmorillonite clay =
(colloidal)"=20
name=3DDescription>
<META content=3D"Microsoft FrontPage 2.0" name=3DFORMATTER>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
<META=20
content=3D"Montmorillonite Clay, Allergies, bleeding gums, skin =
complexion, skin cosmetics, weight control, thick hair, arthritis, trace =
minerals, colloidal minerals, montmorillonite clay, Allergies, Bleeding =
Gums, Skin Complexion, Skin Cosmetics, Weight Control, Thick Hair, =
Arthritis, Trace Minerals, Colloidal Minerals, Symmetry, health, herb, =
herbal, nutrition, Go Symmetry"=20
name=3DKeywords><BASE target=3Dcontent>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff topMargin=3D0>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft>
<TABLE bgColor=3D#ffffff border=3D0 borderColor=3D#008000 =
borderColorDark=3D#000000=20
borderColorLight=3D#808000 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D665>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle bgColor=3D#ffffff>
            <P align=3Dcenter><A name=3DTop></A><FONT color=3D#008000=20
            size=3D6><EM>Montmorillonite Clay </EM></FONT><A=20
            href=3D"welcome.htm"><FONT color=3D#008000 size=3D6><EM><IMG =

            alt=3D"Go back Home" border=3D0 height=3D30 =
src=3D"House.gif"=20
            width=3D31></EM></FONT></A><FONT color=3D#008000 =
size=3D6><EM>=20
            </EM></FONT><A href=3D"welcome.htm"><FONT color=3D#400040=20
            size=3D3>home</FONT></A></P>
            <HR color=3D#008000 SIZE=3D1>

            <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3D#008000 size=3D4>Symmetry =
Products with=20
            </FONT><FONT color=3D#008000 =
size=3D3><STRONG>Montmorillonite=20
            Clay</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#008000 =
size=3D4>:</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
                <P align=3Dcenter><A href=3D"nutrapack.htm"><FONT=20
                size=3D5>NutraPack</FONT></A></P>
                <P align=3Dcenter><A href=3D"botanacleanse.htm"><FONT=20
                size=3D5>BotanaCleanse</FONT></A></P>
                <P align=3Dcenter><A href=3D"skin-cap.htm"><FONT =
size=3D5>Skin Renewal=20
                Caplet</FONT></A></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P align=3Dleft>As a dietary supplement, users report =
improvement of=20
            health in many areas such as more energy and stamina, =
reduced=20
            arthritis pain, stronger and faster growing nails, thicker =
hair,=20
            stronger teeth, fewer cavities, healing of<BR>bleeding gums, =
faster=20
            healing of wounds or fractures, fewer colds, smoother =
complexion,=20
            better weight control,<BR>and an overall healthier =
body.<BR><BR>Dr.=20
            Ralph Cinque has written, in an article in The Life Science =
Health=20
            System, that vitamin and mineral supplements, because they =
are=20
            fractionated, are treated as toxic waste in the body. =
Minerals, in=20
            particular, in an unnatural form, can accumulate and cause =
harmful=20
            effects. Yet, clearly we need minerals today as never =
before,=20
            because of our impoverished soils. An increasing number of =
doctors=20
            and scientists believe that our bodies can only function =
optimally=20
            when given whole food nutrients.<BR><BR>Most supplements =
only offer=20
            a few of the many essential minerals necessary to sustain =
good=20
            health. An average<BR>mineral analysis of Montmorillonite =
contains=20
            no less than 67 minerals, including the vital trace=20
            minerals.<BR><BR>The mountain in Utah which contains this =
rich=20
            source of Montmorillonite is an ancient bed long believed by =

            the<BR>Native American medicine men to be mystical in =
nature, and=20
            rumors abound about its miraculous properties. Recently it =
has been=20
            recognized and utilized by the cosmetic industry and by soil =

            experts, who value it as an exceptionally good agricultural=20
            enhancement: crops grow faster, taste better, and are more =
resistant=20
            to disease. <BR>Montmorillonite contains a balance of =
minerals in=20
            their natural colloidal form, making it easily assimilated. =
There is=20
            much interest in colloidals today, but most colloidal =
minerals=20
            available are artificially produced in a laboratory, and =
many are=20
            manufactured with harmful solvents. Nothing could be better =
for you=20
            and your family than the kind of colloidal minerals Nature =
herself=20
            makes.<BR><BR>The minerals present in montmorillonite =
enhance the=20
            production of enzymes in all living organisms.<BR>The =
importance of=20
            enzymes cannot be emphasized enough: Dr. Edward Howell, the =
father=20
            of modern enzyme<BR>research, has written that enzyme =
deficiency is=20
            a significant cause of premature aging and the development=20
            of<BR>numerous degenerative diseases.<BR><BR>Now, the only =
place you=20
            can get these minerals in the United States is from a =
prehistoric=20
            valley in southern Utah that according to geologists 75 =
million=20
            years ago has 60-62 minerals in the walls, in the floor of =
that=20
            valley and those trees and the grasses in that valley and =
that=20
            forest took up all the metallic minerals and made colloidal =
minerals=20
            in their tissues.<BR><BR>Here's what people are saying, =
&quot;Hey,=20
            my arthritis got better&quot;, &quot;My diabetes got =
better&quot;,=20
            &quot;early cataracts went<BR>away&quot;, &quot;My white =
hair turned=20
            black again&quot;, &quot;My knee arthritis got better&quot; =
and so=20
            on ...<BR><BR>Users of Montmorillonite report improvement of =
health=20
            in many areas such as energy, stamina, reduced =
arthritis<BR>pain,=20
            stronger and faster growing nails, thicker hair, stronger =
teeth,=20
            fewer cavities, healing of bleeding gums, faster healing of =
wounds=20
            or fractures, fewer colds, smoother skin complexions, better =
weight=20
            control, and an overall healthier body.<BR><BR>Satellite =
pictures=20
            have found five deposits of Montmorillonite Clay around the =
world.=20
            These sites were all found<BR>at high altitudes and the =
people=20
            living in those areas have very long lives.<BR></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
                <P align=3Dleft>These five Montmorillonite deposits are=20
                located:<BR>1. Himalayas - China, Tibet<BR>2. Urals -=20
                Pakistan<BR>3. Caucasians - Georgia (Russia) =
Armenians<BR>4.=20
                Andes - Peru, Ecuador<BR>5. Wasatch - Utah =
USA</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P align=3Dleft>Nobel prize nominee Dr. Joel D. Wallach =
notes that the=20
            people who live in these areas (except Utah where there is =
no local=20
            population) live to be 120-140 years old.<BR><BR>The reason =
for=20
            their longevity is that their crops are fertilized with=20
            Montmorillonite, the biggest and certainly the<BR>most =
accessible=20
            deposit in the world is the one in Utah. </P>
            <P><A href=3D"#Top"><IMG border=3D0 height=3D79 =
src=3D"up.gif"=20
            =
width=3D63></A></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE1C0F.D1F2F3C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 02:33:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA09305;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:31:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:31:32 -0800
Message-ID: <001f01be1c4b$f4b6d3e0$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Montmorillonite Clay, Nanopore Material.  Substitute D2O for H2O Structual Water.
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:26:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE1C11.2F449C80"
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: <"xZllM1.0.JH2.4GdOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25087
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_000B_01BE1C11.2F449C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


M ontmorillonite=20


Montmorillonite=20



back=20

Montmorillonite
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
=20
The compnent of montmorillonite {(Al2[SiO4O10](OH)2.n(H2O)} is complex =
and changes greatly.Si in the tetrahedroid of montmorillonite can be =
substituted by a little Al,Fe and Ti.In the octahedron of =
montmorillonite,Al can be substituted by Mg,Fe,Zn,Ni,Li or Cr.=20
Montmorillonite is white,pink,light grey or light green.Its streak is =
white. It has no luster. Hardness:2~2.5.It is soft and feels =
stating.Specific gravity:2~2.7.It will expand and turn into a paste when =
water is put in it.It has strong adsorptivity and cation-exchange =
property.It has good plasticity,bonding ability and dispersed suspending =
ability.=20
Montmorillonite is mainly produced by weathering of basic rock and =
olivinfels in alkaline environment.It distributes over =
Zhejiang,Guangxi,Hubei,Yunnan,Liaoning,Jilin,Hebei,etc.=20
Montmorillonite is widely used in the industrial departments of =
ceramal,dyestuff, papermaking and rubber and it is also widely used in =
purification of oil and petroleum.=20
back=20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
=1A=20

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE1C11.2F449C80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>Montmorillonite</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://202.112.29.88/kuang/mts1.html>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff text=3D#033f2 VLINE =3D FF555 LINE =3D FF555>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<CENTER>
<H2><EM><STRONG><FONT size=3D+4>M </FONT><FONT size=3D+2>ontmorillonite=20
</FONT></STRONG></EM></H2>
<P>
<P>
<P>Montmorillonite=20
<P>
<P>
<P><A href=3D"nhyn1.html">back</A> </CENTER>
<DD>
<DD>Montmorillonite
<HR>
=20
<DD>
<DD>The compnent of montmorillonite=20
{(Al<SUB>2</SUB>[SiO<SUB>4</SUB>O<SUB>10</SUB>](OH)<SUB>2</SUB>.n(H<SUB>2=
</SUB>O)}=20
is complex and changes greatly.Si in the tetrahedroid of montmorillonite =
can be=20
substituted by a little Al,Fe and Ti.In the octahedron of =
montmorillonite,Al can=20
be substituted by Mg,Fe,Zn,Ni,Li or Cr.=20
<DD>
<DD>Montmorillonite is white,pink,light grey or light green.Its streak =
is white.=20
It has no luster. Hardness:2~2.5.It is soft and feels stating.Specific=20
gravity:2~2.7.It will expand and turn into a paste when water is put in =
it.It=20
has strong adsorptivity and cation-exchange property.It has good=20
plasticity,bonding ability and dispersed suspending ability.=20
<DD>
<DD>Montmorillonite is mainly produced by weathering of basic rock and=20
olivinfels in alkaline environment.It distributes over=20
Zhejiang,Guangxi,Hubei,Yunnan,Liaoning,Jilin,Hebei,etc.=20
<DD>
<DD>Montmorillonite is widely used in the industrial departments of=20
ceramal,dyestuff, papermaking and rubber and it is also widely used in=20
purification of oil and petroleum.=20
<DL></DL>
<CENTER><A href=3D"nhyn1.html">back</A> </CENTER>
<DL></DL>
<HR>
=1A </DD></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE1C11.2F449C80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 03:09:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA14603;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:07:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:07:23 -0800
Message-ID: <003301be1c50$f693df00$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Circular 1. Publications of the Georgia Geologic Survey (http://www.voap.com/dn
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:02:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01BE1C16.34EDA3C0"
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: <"pkt5z2.0.0a3.hndOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25088
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_0014_01BE1C16.34EDA3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kinetic Furnace Water Contents?

http://www.voap.com/dnr/environ/branches/geosurv/ggscirc1.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BE1C16.34EDA3C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Circular 1. Publications of the Georgia Geologic Survey.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Circular 1. Publications of the Georgia Geologic Survey.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.voap.com/dnr/environ/branches/geosurv/ggscirc1.htm
Modified=60FF53AC501CBE0189

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01BE1C16.34EDA3C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 03:55:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA21074;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 03:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004501be1c57$46559960$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: O-U effects and "Contamination" from Glass Etc.
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:47:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"xGWZ2.0.C95.LSeOs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25089
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Jed's round of exchanges with Mitchell Swartz on the Power-Gen results,
points out the importance of knowing what species of chemicals
and/or nanoparticles that are eroded from the materials exposed to the water
in the experiments.

For instance we normally think of glass/quartz as being inert,however in the
presence of alkaline water the glass is attacked to form
silicates and also release trace quantities of
elements/heavy metals that would normally be ignored. The properties of
clays idigenous to a particular area points this out.

For instance Clays contain Nanoparticles produced by water "etching" that
cannot be removed by filtering, even with microfilters.

Too bad the Power-Gen (and other O-U producing device) water was not
analyzed for the chemical colloid/nanoparticle content and species.

Regards,     Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 06:31:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA00339;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:28:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:28:58 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981130142926.00904a08 freeway.net>
X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:29:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: O-U effects and "Contamination" from Glass Etc.
Resent-Message-ID: <"l8ho_3.0.w4.fkgOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25090
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:47 AM 11/30/98 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>
>For instance we normally think of glass/quartz as being inert,however in the
>presence of alkaline water the glass is attacked to form
>silicates and also release trace quantities of
>elements/heavy metals that would normally be ignored. The properties of
>clays idigenous to a particular area points this out.
>
>
>Regards,     Frederick
>

In the article "Cold Fusion is Real?" by Charles Platt in November Wired
Magazine, Gabe Collins of CETI says "If you get any sodium in the system it
kills the reaction..." (p.224).  Sodium ions certainly can be leached from
glass at alkaline pHs.  Inert reactors (Polyfluoronated polymers?) should be
considered in these electrolysis experiments.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 07:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA13428;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:14:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:14:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130101003.00691e74 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:10:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981129080552.00835100 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hVJJj3.0.kH3.-OhOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25091
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Swartz writes:

	So there were not "no" heater, not one heater, but two.

Yeah, but the other one was off the whole time I observed it, so it does
not count.


	THe total dissipation other than electrical input to the cell
	according to people who were there was 85 watts with your
	estimate of 25 watts for the aquarium pump. It does NOT seem
	reasonable that the heaters dissipated 5 watts and the measuring
	equipment dissipated 55 watts, does it?

The cell heaters were powered by Radio Shack transformers rated at 5 watts
max. When they draw any more power than that, they burn up. The aquarium
pump might have been drawing a bit more than 25 watts; that was an estimate
which I jotted down after watching the meters when the pump motor was off.
Much of the power was consumed by the power supplies for the meters. It is
kind of silly to include this, but everything plugged into one power strip.


	Were these initial reports wrong?

Nope. Right as rain.


I wrote: "The course was as shown in the diagram." Swartz asks:

	Mr. Rothwell's claim thata diagram shows the time course of
	heaters in an experiment is nonsense.

I did not notice the word "time" here. I thought this mean physical course
or wiring. I do not know what a "time course" would be.


	One can only presume that the heaters were on to account for the
	85 watts dissipated.

One can I suppose, but one would be wrong, because they were turned off.


	Unless these numbers become internally consistent,  Mitchell
	Jones' comments and analysis stands as quite reasonable.

I am glad you agree with his analysis! He concluded: "That would drop the
high power run down from 1300 watts to 650 watts, and would drop the low
power run from 469 watts to 234.5     watts." That would be 2,300 time input.


	This may not be the entire story.  There may have been three
	heaters including two by the "tower".

Yup. But to simplify I counted those two as a single pre-heater. Since they
were both off the entire time I do not think it matters much.


	The time course of BOTH auxilliary heaters and other reservoir
	heaters is important for reasons of possible interference, heat
	contamination, etc.

I do not know what a "time course" is, but the auxillary heaters and "other
reservoir heaters" were never used when I observed the experiment.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 07:19:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14287;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:16:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:16:28 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130101656.0082e100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:16:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: O-U effects and "Contamination" from Glass Etc.
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981130142926.00904a08 freeway.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RHpDY1.0.xU3.ARhOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25092
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




>At 04:47 AM 11/30/98 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>>For instance we normally think of glass/quartz as being inert,however in the
>>presence of alkaline water the glass is attacked to form
>>silicates and also release trace quantities of
>>elements/heavy metals that would normally be ignored. The properties of
>>clays idigenous to a particular area points this out.
>>Regards,     Frederick
>>
>At 09:29 AM 11/30/98 -0500, Edwin Strojny wrote:
>In the article "Cold Fusion is Real?" by Charles Platt in November Wired
>Magazine, Gabe Collins of CETI says "If you get any sodium in the system it
>kills the reaction..." (p.224).  Sodium ions certainly can be leached from
>glass at alkaline pHs.  Inert reactors (Polyfluoronated polymers?) should be
>considered in these electrolysis experiments.
>Ed Strojny


   Ed:
  We have recommended, and used, high density polypropylene,
which in our early experiments examining the time-course of electrical
conductivity changes of "pure" water demonstrated the best
characteristics.

   Fred:
   I think the temperature instabilities in a heated
vertical flow calorimetry system dominates any impact from
putative montmorillite.   ;-)

   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 07:24:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17413;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:21:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:21:52 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130102312.00826b80 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:23:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981130101003.00691e74 pop.mindspring.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981129080552.00835100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PKIla.0._F4.GWhOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25093
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 10:10 AM 11/30/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell says:
>Yup. But to simplify I counted those two as a single pre-heater. Since they
>were both off the entire time I do not think it matters much.


   This remains unclear - and it is a very important matter.

  Does this mean that the heaters were NEVER on, is that correct?  

  Or were they used,and then turned off,which is what Jed
means by "off the entire time (Jed was collecting data)"?

  Why would two heaters be present in-circuit and never used?
How did the system get to such a warm flow input in the description
if they were not?

    Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 08:01:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA29720;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:58:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:58:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130105347.00689b90 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:53:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981130102312.00826b80 world.std.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981130101003.00691e74 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981129080552.00835100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA29694
Resent-Message-ID: <"dDGu9.0.CG7.L2iOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25094
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

M. Swartz writes:

	This remains unclear - and it is a very important matter.

I am sure it is perfectly clear to all readers. I said they "were never
used when I observed the experiment."


	Or were they used, and then turned off . . .

How would I know? 


	. . .which is what Jed means by "off the entire time (Jed was
	collecting data)"?

Since I was collecting data for many hours I do not see what difference it
would make if they had been turned on when I wasn't watching.


	Why would two heaters be present in-circuit and never used?

I explained this in detail already, several times. I do not understand why
Mitchell Swartz alone, among all these readers, cannot understand a simple
description, but I'll say it again: "It was required to boost the inlet
temperature to initiate the reaction in Cravens' house, where the ambient
air is quite cold." Is that clear?

Cravens' house in mountains: C-O-L-D

Hotel in Los Angeles next to Disneyland: W-A-R-M, all year long. That's why
Mr. Disney put it there.


	How did the system get to such a warm flow input in the
	description if they were not?

It is simple! The ambient temperature at the hotel was warm enough to
trigger the CF reaction without pre-heating. The CF reaction then generated
600 to 1200 watts, and heated all of the water in the loop to ~35�C. At
that point, losses from the cooling loop, cell, and reservoir balanced the
CF heat, so the reservoir temperature stabilized.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 12:06:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32210;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:02:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:02:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130140043.00b03428 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:00:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Brown's nuclear battery
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8khLc2.0.Ct7.HdlOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25095
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Paul Brown sent me some literature on his nuclear battery technology.  It
is all authored by him.  He explains the basic effect with this simple
circuit:

                              beta radiation
                                 |    |   |  
                                 |    |   |
                                 v    v   v
                     ---------==============---------
                     |                               |
                     |                               \
                   _____                             /
                     _    battery                    \  resistive
                   _____                             /  load
                     _                               \ 
                     |                               |
                     |                               |
                      -------------------------------

This is known as a Burke Cell (pat # 3,409,820 and 3,530,316).  It is
claimed that "all of the power dissipated in the load is not drawn from the
battery".
He explains that a single beta absorbed in the Cu wire creates some 80,000
ions and that those 80,000 free electrons are acted upon by the applied emf
to give them a uniform direction of flow.  "This increase in the number of
moving charge carriers is measured in the real world as increased current."

That is about all the explanation he gives.  The rest of the literature is
devoted to applying this effect to resonant LC circuits to create nuclear
power supplies.

I can't see how the basic effect works.  I can imagine the beta radiation
slightly lowering the resistance of that section of wire but it still seems
that all of the power dissipated in the load must come from the battery.

Am I missing something?



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 13:08:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16824;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:49:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:49:15 -0800
Message-ID: <008001be1ca2$37c52820$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:44:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"LY0q91.0.o64.BJmOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25096
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, November 30, 1998 1:05 PM
Subject: Brown's nuclear battery


>Paul Brown sent me some literature on his nuclear battery technology.  It
>is all authored by him.

Snip sketch
>
>This is known as a Burke Cell (pat # 3,409,820 and 3,530,316).

The IBM Patents go back to Jan 1st 1971 starting around 3,555,000 so these
are not there.

It is
>claimed that "all of the power dissipated in the load is not drawn from the
>battery".

Right, only  about 99.999999% comes from the battery. :-)
>He explains that a single beta absorbed in the Cu wire creates some 80,000
>ions and that those 80,000 free electrons are acted upon by the applied emf
>to give them a uniform direction of flow.

I think they call that a change in resistance.

 "This increase in the number of
>moving charge carriers is measured in the real world as increased current."

Yep, about 80,000 electrons worth.
>
>That is about all the explanation he gives.  The rest of the literature is
>devoted to applying this effect to resonant LC circuits to create nuclear
>power supplies.
>
>I can't see how the basic effect works.  I can imagine the beta radiation
>slightly lowering the resistance of that section of wire but it still seems
>that all of the power dissipated in the load must come from the battery.
>
>Am I missing something?

I watched the "Wizard of Oz"  for about the 200th time last night. You might
ask the "Scarecrow".  :-)

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 13:09:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26064;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:07:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:07:12 -0800
Message-ID: <36630904.6143 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:07:16 -0700
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Little: Brown's nuclear battery  11.30.98
References: <3.0.1.32.19981130140043.00b03428 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"06y3Y1.0.AN6.0amOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25097
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nov. 30, 1998

Hi Scott Little,  If the betas impinged almost longitudinally onto the
Cu wire, then perhaps a fraction of their momentum would become
increased EMF in the circuit.  Would a rectifying diode in the circuit
increase such an effect?  Is there a surface layer effect on the Cu
wire, such as a layer of CuO, that would create EMF from betas absorbed
within the wire?  What currents, voltages, and beta fluxes are involved?

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 13:23:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01801;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:21:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:21:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130152049.00b04bb0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:20:49 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Murray: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <36630904.6143 earthlink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981130140043.00b03428 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"iUqYf3.0._R.SnmOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25098
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 14:07 11/30/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:

>If the betas impinged almost longitudinally onto the
>Cu wire, then perhaps a fraction of their momentum would become
>increased EMF in the circuit.

He states that the effect occurs "regardless of their incident angle" and
this is reinforced by his usage of the irradiated conductor in an LC
oscillator circuit where the betas are supposed to help the electrons flow
both ways.

>What currents, voltages, and beta fluxes are involved?

There is no such detailed information in the papers I have.  We do have
IE's report of a 75 watt power output from 1.1 Ci of Sr-90.  Such a source
only puts out 18 milliwatts of power in its beta emissions so Brown's
device has an apparent power gain of ~4200.



Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 17:04:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24935;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:59:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:59:51 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130200113.0082e790 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:01:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"reChT.0.X56.6-pOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25099
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  Dear colleagues:

   We are putting a draft manuscript up on the web for
viewing on a limited basis to obtain ideas, comments and 
criticisms from vortex-l readers who are interested.

  The title is:

   TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION 
   AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS
 
  If anyone of vortex who is seriously interested in cf,
or flow calorimetry and its patterns of failure, and
wants the URL please send me private email
for the location.  

    The paper will be up by this evening, and for 
only a short time thereafter.

    Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 17:16:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29604;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:14:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:14:15 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:13:58 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981130140043.00b03428 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130144456.2700B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"V5adz1.0.UE7.dBqOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25100
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Scott Little wrote:

> I can't see how the basic effect works.  I can imagine the beta radiation
> slightly lowering the resistance of that section of wire but it still seems
> that all of the power dissipated in the load must come from the battery.
> 
> Am I missing something?

No, you're right, that explanation is similar to the one for a
photoresistive cell.  If beta particles create extra carriers, it only
affects conductivity, similar to when visible photons create some extra
carriers in a CdS cell and make the resistance value fall.

If there was a semiconductor junction involved, then the Brown device
would simply be a "solar cell" run by beta particles rather than by
sunlight.  I believe that PN-junction nuclear batteries are nothing new. 
But his device is something different. 

For there to be an energy gain, there must be NEGATIVE resistance in the
circuit.  In other words, a voltage must appear lengthwise across the
Brown device and act to pump charge in the same direction in which charge
it is already flowing. Normal resistors create a voltage which opposes
the charge flow. 

Since his invention is not based on the natural e-field created at a diode
junction, E-fields must arise by other means.  The charge flow inside his
material must somehow be causing the beta-released electrons to fly in the
same direction as the bulk charge flow (and against the e-field imposed by
the battery.)  But... that means that the released charges would
themselves create a voltage, which would reverse the anomalous driving
force, which would again reverse the voltage, etc., and you'd get some
sort of weird oscillation with electromagnetic waves bouncing around
inside the volume of the metal material.  This is how "Gunn diode"
microwave transmitters work: a diode in zener breakdown has a negative
resistance value, and this leads to oscillation at microwave freqencies.

Hey!  The "Skin Effect!"  Did you know that the Skin Effect (where hi-freq
electric current stays on the outside of thick wires) actually operates
because
the speed of light in a conductive material is immensely SLOW?  If this
"Brown effect" causes microscopic regions of negative resistance to appear
inside a wire, they would probably create chaotic self-oscillations of
electrical noise having fairly *LOW* frequency.  If the same thing
occurred in a
nonconductor, you'd get millimeter waves, or IR, or light.  But inside a
good conductor where the wave propagation is slow, you might get
audio-freq oscillations.  The frequency would be determined by the
conductivity of the material, and by its dimensions.  A particular size of
wire would have a resonant frequency, (a fundamental plus overtones, just
like any resonant cavity) and if an external LC tuned circuit was
connected to it, this would act like a global "synchronizer," and would
force the entire negative resistor to oscillate coherently.  Imagine a
laser, but with a metal bar as the amplifier crystal, with beta particles
as the pump radiation, and with the "solid plasma" of the metal wire
causing the propagation velocity of the internally-emitted radiation to be
very, very low.  This is not a "laser", this is Electrical Energy
Ampflification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.  EEASER? 

Very, VERY cool!       (If this is indeed how it works.)

If the Brown Effect is real, then any radioactive metal mass should have
slow EM radiation propagating around inside of it.  This probably would
not be very obvious.  A tiny hall-effect probe might pick it up.  Or if
magnetic indicating fluid was painted on the metal surface, perhaps we'd
see crawling fringes of b-field patterns, like standing waves on a
swimming pool.  Huh.  A-bomb cores with constantly roiling magnetic field
patterns crawling on their surfaces, like photographs of the sun.  Perhaps
the sunspots are the cores of self-sustaining patterns of radiation-pumped
electric current.

Other speculations: if the Brown effect oscillations were not synchronized
via an external tuned circuit, then the internal EM vibrations within the
metal would simply be absorbed by the material.  It would get hot. 
Therefor, if you want to build a 10-watt Brown-effect power supply, you
would need a radioactive source with such a fiercely high output flux that
it constantly heats the metal absorber at a rate of at least 10-watts!
Once the Brown-oscillations commenced, some part of the heat energy would
be converted into AC power, and the metal wouldn't be so hot. However... a
10 watt radioactive heater???  (And far more than 10 Watts if the process
is not 100% efficient!)  Radioactive metals which stay physically warm are
nothing *I* would want to be messing with. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 30 18:04:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20250;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:02:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:02:56 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:02:43 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130144456.2700B-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130171845.11520A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9jAsX2.0.9y4.EvqOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25101
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, William Beaty wrote:

> very, very low.  This is not a "laser", this is Electrical Energy
> Ampflification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.  EEASER? 

Set your brainstorm helmets on "stun".

If metals can be converted into "electric power gain-media" by
illuminating them with beta radiation, perhaps there are other conditions
which produce similar effects.  The result might be microscopic
electromagnetic slow-wave internal standing wave patterns having
gargantuan e-fields (and possibly some associated particle-accelerator
effects.)  This couldn't occur in uniform bulk material: the EM waves
would simply propagate away from the first amplifier region to attain a
positive gain condition.  Outbursts would be localized to tiny metal
structures which can confine an internal standing wave and act as
resonators.  If a high pump-rate could not be maintained, then the effects
would be temporary as the large internal AC voltages trigger a dumping of
stored energy.  The high local currents might destroy the
micro-resonators:  think of a Q-switched YAG laser with defects in its
crystal, which shatters as soon as feedback is allowed to cause
amplification. 

Thus, given that this "Brown effect" electrical amplification is real and
is not so rare, most of metal-based CF has a relatively simple
explanation!   Thank you, thank yuh verrymuch...   :) 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 30 18:08:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA23168;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:07:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:07:41 -0800
Message-ID: <009e01be1cce$b74d74e0$51bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Bobcandeu aol.com>, <shorty@greatlakes.net>
Subject: Off Topic. The World's Fastest Duck
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:01:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"e0B361.0.qf5.jzqOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25102
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

While reminiscing with a former cohort about
outrunning an wayward atomic artillery shell at a storage site back in 1952,
he told me about an interesting incident at the Nevada test site when they
were test firing the 11 inch atomic cannon ca. 1953.

Seems that when the atomic shell was inserted
into the cannon (before the powder was loaded) some electrical circuitry was
prematurely activated and caused the shells to Dud on impact.

Having the technical expertise of the Sandia-Los Alamos scientists to solve
the problem, they put a "pilot" lightbulb in the nose of the shell, and had
a technician stand on a 12 foot step-ladder and peer down the barrel of the
cannon to see if the bulb lit when they in inserted the shell.

Just as the Tech was peering into the cannon to see if the bulb had lit,and
he "saw the light" so to speak, a similar model cannon about 100 yards away
fired off a round,causing the
technician's reflexes to kick over the  step-ladder and leave him
traumatized and dangling with his arms wrapped around the end of the
cannon....  :-)

Regards,     Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 19:45:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA32482;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:42:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:42:18 -0800
Message-ID: <000901be1cdc$3cb79680$2a49ccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:39:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"0pVhz1.0.Sx7.QMsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25103
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>  Dear colleagues:
>
>   We are putting a draft manuscript up on the web for
>viewing on a limited basis to obtain ideas, comments and
>criticisms from vortex-l readers who are interested.
>
>  The title is:
>
>   TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION
>   AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS
>
>  If anyone of vortex who is seriously interested in cf,
>or flow calorimetry and its patterns of failure, and
>wants the URL please send me private email
>for the location.
>
>    The paper will be up by this evening, and for
>only a short time thereafter.
>
>    Mitchell Swartz
--------------------------------
Dear Mitchell, please send my the URL. I would like to read your manuscript.

Regards, Mike





>
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 19:56:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07026;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:54:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:54:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981130215522.009b41f0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:55:22 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130171845.11520A-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130144456.2700B-100000 eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ah4rN2.0.Zj1.2YsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25104
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 06:02 PM 11/30/98 -0800, William Beaty wrote:

>Set your brainstorm helmets on "stun".

No kidding!

But I'm confused about the speed of light being SLOW in good conductors.
AFAIK, electrical signals propogate thru conductors at speeds pretty close
to 3E8 m/s, don't they?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 20:00:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA09638;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:59:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:59:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981130215949.009bf550 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:59:49 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <000901be1cdc$3cb79680$2a49ccd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"d5Hbh1.0.HM2.BcsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25105
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:39 PM 11/30/98 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote:

>>   TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION
>>   AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS

>Dear Mitchell, please send my the URL. I would like to read your manuscript.

Go ahead and post the URL to Vortex, Mitchell.  It's appropriate.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West,  Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185 (voice)       512-346-3017 (FAX) 
little eden.com            http://www.eden.com/~little

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 20:03:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA11917;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:02:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:02:35 -0800
Message-ID: <19981201040232.26712.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:02:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"TlpFK1.0.7w2.QfsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25106
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
>
> Paul Brown sent me some literature on his nuclear battery
technology.  It
> is all authored by him.  He explains the basic effect with this simple
> circuit:
> 
>                               beta radiation
>                                  |    |   |  
>                                  |    |   |
>                                  v    v   v
>                      ---------==============---------
>                      |                               |
>                      |                               \
>                    _____                             /
>                      _    battery                    \  resistive
>                    _____                             /  load
>                      _                               \ 
>                      |                               |
>                      |                               |
>                       -------------------------------
> 
>It is claimed that "all of the power dissipated in the load is not
drawn 
>from the battery".
>He explains that a single beta absorbed in the Cu wire creates some
80,000
>ions and that those 80,000 free electrons are acted upon by the
applied emf
>to give them a uniform direction of flow.  "This increase in the
number of
>moving charge carriers is measured in the real world as increased
current."
[snip]

Increasing the number of current conductors does not generate energy.
They only reduce resistivity, don't eliminate it. In fact, if the new
charges are added at zero velocity, they make a transient
inductive-like effect that will ever so briefely IMPEDE the current
flow but not by much. It's probably not an observable effect, or else
it could be used as a radiation detector.

If the extra charges were directed so as to reinforce current flow, as
Murray proposes, then there would indeed be a small emf. However, the
effect would be small and short lived per particle. Remember that in a
metallic conductor, an electron collides with the lattice on average
about once every picosec and has a mean free path of about 10^-7 m =
100 nm. Any effect damps out very quickly.

The natural oscillation frequency of any purturbation to local charge
neutrality in a metal is over 10^15 Hz, which is in the UV range of
frequencies.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 20:08:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA13997;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:06:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:06:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130230645.00840100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:06:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981130215949.009bf550 mail.eden.com>
References: <000901be1cdc$3cb79680$2a49ccd1 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DhC5S3.0.dQ3.AjsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25107
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


At 09:59 PM 11/30/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>At 10:39 PM 11/30/98 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote:
>
>>>   TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION
>>>   AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS
>
>>Dear Mitchell, please send my the URL. I would like to read your manuscript.
>
>Go ahead and post the URL to Vortex, Mitchell.  It's appropriate.



  I have sent Scott and Mike the URL by email, as discussed
in the original post. 

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

  If anyone of vortex who is seriously interested in cf,
or flow calorimetry and its patterns of failure, and
wants the URL please send me private email
for the location.  

    The paper will be up by this evening, and for 
only a short time thereafter.

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


    Mitchell Swartz

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 20:12:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16269;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:10:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:10:59 -0800
Message-ID: <19981201040700.21034.rocketmail send1e.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:07:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"cFBQm.0._z3.InsOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25108
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> But I'm confused about the speed of light being SLOW in good
conductors.
> AFAIK, electrical signals propogate thru conductors at speeds pretty
close
> to 3E8 m/s, don't they?

Signals propagate as electromagnetic waves guided over the surface of
the conductor. Bill Beaty is correct that the wave velocity into and
within the conductor is very slow. It is also very dissipative. Hence,
the signal wave on the surface never gets very far inward (skin effect).
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Nov 30 21:31:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12259;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:28:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:28:56 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:28:50 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981130215522.009b41f0 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130205725.28123B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sgafX3.0.H_2.MwtOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25109
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Scott Little wrote:

> At 06:02 PM 11/30/98 -0800, William Beaty wrote:
> >Set your brainstorm helmets on "stun".
> 
> No kidding!
> 
> But I'm confused about the speed of light being SLOW in good conductors.
> AFAIK, electrical signals propogate thru conductors at speeds pretty close
> to 3E8 m/s, don't they?

A good point.  Normal electric circuitry (lampcord, for instance), is a
waveguide.  The energy propagates as E and B fields in the space around
the conductors (and is coupled to them with an electric current
proportional to B, and charge separation proportional to E).  Imagine the
electrical energy to be a tube-shaped region of EM wave energy having the
wire running down its middle. The hollow-tube-shaped wave reflects from
the wires so it cannot leave the wires, but neither does it penetrate much
(in a perfect conductor, it would not penetrate at all.)  A length of
lampcord is not too much different than coaxial cable, and is even
somewhat similar to a microwave waveguide.  In all of these, the energy
propagates as EM fields in the hollow part, and is coupled to and
reflected by the surface of the conductor (reflected because of the
voltage and the current associated with the charges making up the
conductor.) 

Here's a thought-experiment.  Imagine a large cube of solid copper. 
Imagine that there is a small spherical hollow in its center, and there's
a powerful bar magnet in the hollow.  If a compass is placed near this
copper cube, the field penetrates the copper and hidden magnet deflects
the compass.  Now, what would happen if the bar magnet was suddenly
rotated forcibly within its cavity by 180 degrees?  The compass would take
on an opposite deflection, but not instantly.  It takes quite a while for
the changes in b-field to "sag through" that copper shield.  This
illustrates the difference between a metal waveguide and a metal MEDIUM
with waves propagating within it.  Wiggle that magnet slowly, and measure
the phase delay felt by the compass.

I assume that normally the waves within a metal are rarely an issue, since
the resistance of the metal causes huge losses, and the metal absorbs the
waves within a short distance.  But the "Brown effect" could eliminate
this problem if it were to cause the metal's resistance to decrease
through zero and wind up negative.  However, I don't have any intuitive
picture for how waves would propagate within a negative resistive
material.
At zero resistance, the speed of the waves goes to zero (a perfect
conductor is a perfect shield.)  At negative resistance, oscillations
should grow, but how can the waves move in a "time reversed" fashion?
Might there be effects resembling phase-conjugate mirror phenomena or
something?  Maybe the entire volume of metal becomes infected with a 3D
standing wave, like Chladni-plate Bessel functions but in 3D rather than
2D.  Maybe the waves sequentially "exhaust" the energy stored in one 3D
mode, then leap to the next, allowing the pumping radiation to "refill"
the empty modes. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Nov 30 21:35:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA13561;
	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:33:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:33:22 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3663723C.3864 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:36:12 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
References: <3.0.1.32.19981129080552.00835100 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19981128220612.00694cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19981128200012.007ab100 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19981124133026.00690214 pop.mindspring.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19981124123905.0081f9c0 world.std.com>
	 <3.0.1.32.19981124095625.00689448 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19981130102312.00826b80@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"aPoDB2.0.pJ3.X-tOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25110
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

November 30, 1998

Vortex,

There seems to some miscommunication and confusion of details in the
CETI Power-Gen '95 demonstration setup circuitry. It has caused me to
re-examine my own diagram and do some remembering.

The diagram drawn and referred to, as mounted in Logajan's website, is
accurate. It is based on a series of photographs taken of the setup and
it's meter readings at the time.
The values shown on the diagrams are actual, not window dressing.

What Jed refers to as a second 'heater' that was turned off in the demo
setup is not a heater.

There is only ONE thermocouple temperature controlled cartridge heater
active in the electrolyte resevoir common to both the active and control
columns in the demo setup.
The temperature control setting of the heater was not readable or stated
to me.

There is a Radio Shack universal DC power supply (voltage selectable)
furnishing power to both the active CETI beads column and the reference
control column (the column on the right side). The voltage setting for
electrolysis was gleaned from the photograph and a visit to Radio Shack.
This DC power is connected to the both bead columns for ELECTROLYSIS,
NOT as a 'heater'. The delta T heat comes out of the cell activity.

The active column contains the CETI plated Patterson beads. The
reference control column contains some 'inert' beads. Pattertson
mentioned that they once used nickel beads in the contol column but it
showed an excess delta T. 

The diagram shows the 'AUX' (so labelled on the plexiglass control box)
switch to be off. The AUX wiring goes to the reference control column of
the setup. With the AUX turned off, the meters to that column shows
zeros. The CETI bead column is active with meters giving readings.

On the active CETI beads column, the meters at the time (of the
photographs) shows 230 ma at 9.15 volts DC and a delta T of 8.5 deg.
Centigrade. The Control meters show all zeros with electrolysis (AUX)
power turned off. 

The delta T comes off the difference of the thermocouple (thermisters?)
readings at the electrolyte flow bottom inlet and top outlets to both
active and reference control columns. In all there are two temperature
sensors (two leads per sensor) from each column feeding into a meter
giving delta T values.

The diagram shows both the pump and cooling fans to be turned on. The
fan power is temperature controlled with a thermocouple in the resevoir.
The power control unit to the fan reads 988 and 0.50. What these values
represent, it is not clarified (might be voltage (98.8) and amps (0.50)
to the fan) 

Another ac voltage reading to the  power strip shows 140 v. AC although
the voltage from the ac outlet plug read 117 v. AC.. I do not know
whether this is a rms reading or a peak to peak voltage reading.

On the electrolyte flow 'plumbing, the diagram shows there are flow
control valves on both outlet tubing going from the resevoir into the
columns. There are also one flow control valve to control flow coming
out of the columns and into the resevoir Plus separate 'bleed off'
valves for sampling.

There were no remarks that the hand held radiation meter gave any
readings. It was not turned on at the time of the photographs.

-AK-

Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> 
> At 10:10 AM 11/30/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell says:
> >Yup. But to simplify I counted those two as a single pre-heater. Since they
> >were both off the entire time I do not think it matters much.
> 
>    This remains unclear - and it is a very important matter.
> 
>   Does this mean that the heaters were NEVER on, is that correct?
> 
>   Or were they used,and then turned off,which is what Jed
> means by "off the entire time (Jed was collecting data)"?
> 
>   Why would two heaters be present in-circuit and never used?
> How did the system get to such a warm flow input in the description
> if they were not?
> 
>     Mitchell Swartz