From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 00:14:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA23427;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:12:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:12:31 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b289524341be [208.228.222.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:19:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"R94Mb2.0.zj5.lJwOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25111
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:00 PM 11/30/98, 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 + + + + + -------(Ground)
>                                 |    |   |
>                                 |    |   |
>                                 v    v   v
>                     ---------==============---------
>                     |                               |
>                     |                               \
>                   _____                             /
>                     _    battery                    \  resistive
>                   _____                             /  load
>                     _                               \
>                     |  (-)                          |
>                     |                               |
>                      -------------------------------
>                               |
[snip]                       (Ground)
>
>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?


The beta source, emitting electrons, will grow very positive.  There has to
be some path for the current to return to the beta emitter.  That current
path could be through the load or battery or both, depending on where the
"ground" or negative rail is located, the imposed voltage pulses, and upon
the battery orientation.  The battery is oriented in the *wrong direction*
in the above diagram to send the excess current through the load though, if
the beta pulses are below the battery potential. The excess current in that
case flows through the battery in the above diagram.

The current provided by the radiation source, as previously noted by
others, is several orders of magnitude too low to account for Brown's
excess.  The above is just a minor detail with respect to total energy.
However, one possibility to examine is that the fast rise time pulses
imposed by the impinging betas might in some way damage or affect the
battery, causing it to dump it's energy faster.  Any calorimetry would have
to be total energy balance based.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 01:47:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA07531;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:46:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:46:21 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b2896bf02ba7 [208.228.222.203]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:53:35 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"K9w5E2.0.Xr1.jhxOs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25112
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:00 PM 11/30/98, 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 + + + + + -------(Ground)
>                                 |    |   |
>                                 |    |   |
>                                 v    v   v
>                     ---------==============---------
>                     |                               |
>                     |                               \
>                   _____                             /
>                     _    battery                    \  resistive
>                   _____                             /  load
>                     _                               \
>                     |  (-)                          |
>                     |                               |
>                      -------------------------------
>                               |
[snip]                       (Ground)
>

Possibly high voltage pulses from the betas initiate arcing in both the
resistitive load and the battery simultaneously?  This would give a higher
apparent wattage.  The current would be large but that would be because the
total battery circuit resistance is momentarily very low due to arcing
shorts.  The battery would drain faster.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 04:50:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA31525;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:49:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:49:36 -0800
Message-ID: <005a01be1d28$66cc1260$b2bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: chpt4 (http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt4.html)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:44:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1CED.AAF89FC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"penrE3.0.Vi7.VN-Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25113
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_01BE1CED.AAF89FC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A lot of On-Topic technology.

http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt4.html

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1CED.AAF89FC0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="chpt4.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="chpt4.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt4.html
Modified=20857017281DBE0130

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1CED.AAF89FC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 04:54:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA00897;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:52:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:52:40 -0800
Message-ID: <007301be1d28$d25f2260$b2bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: chpt3 (http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt3.html)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:47:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE1CEE.1BF3A8A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"xhepq3.0.sD.MQ-Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25114
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE1CEE.1BF3A8A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chapter 3

http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt3.html

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE1CEE.1BF3A8A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="chpt3.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="chpt3.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt3.html
Modified=C06714AF281DBE01EE

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE1CEE.1BF3A8A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 04:57:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA02629;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:54:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:54:50 -0800
Message-ID: <008001be1d29$2302c000$b2bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: chpt2 (http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt2.html)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:49:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE1CEE.69D65180"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"hLbhr3.0._e.QS-Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25115
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE1CEE.69D65180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chapter 2

http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt2.html

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE1CEE.69D65180
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="chpt2.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="chpt2.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/chpt2.html
Modified=8018B3FE281DBE014D

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE1CEE.69D65180--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 05:04:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA08037;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:03:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:03:56 -0800
Message-ID: <00a501be1d2a$6819b620$b2bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Home Page of NanoTechnology Magazine (http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:58:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE1CEF.AC4F6B40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xq-sH.0.Vz1.ya-Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25116
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_01BE1CEF.AC4F6B40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I skipped chapter 1. A lot of possibilities for CF related technologies in
this stuff. It even touches on Bose-Einstein Condensates, Horace.  :-)

http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE1CEF.AC4F6B40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Home Page of NanoTechnology Magazine.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Home Page of NanoTechnology Magazine.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.nano-technology.com/nanozine/
Modified=6059BDE1291DBE015C

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BE1CEF.AC4F6B40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 05:55:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA22476;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:54:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:54:00 -0800
Message-ID: <00d001be1d31$6577b6e0$b2bd2299 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Deuteron Loading of Palladium Surfaces
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:49:15 -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: <"ig4AB2.0.2V5.tJ_Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25117
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The Nanotechnology Bug suggests that D2 molecules "effusing" from a
micron-sized
orifice in a highly pressurized vessel of
Deuterium (or H2) at a kilometer/second or more
can be used to treat the surface of Pd in order to get a feel for the O-U
mechanism.

OTOH. Low energy proton/deuteron (ion)bombardment could be used,but heating
will probably mask the O-U effects.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 06:40:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA05887;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:35:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:35:28 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:38:20 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TA85w2.0.fR1.kw_Os" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25118
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 1, 1998

Vortex,

I wrote:

<snip> 
> 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.

I add:

What is not apparant in the diagram but plain to see in a closeup
photograph (also available at Logajan's website), is the combined return
tubing from the CETI demonstration columns. 

A length of it is coiled (about five turns) and enclosed in a large
vented verticle plexiglass cylinder.
 
The cylinder is sectioned into two parts to accomodate the electrolyte
resevoir below the coiled tubing. The return electrolyte tubing drains
into the open vented resevoir which also contains the circulating pump.

The temperature controlled fan is mounted on top of the column. The
coiled clear tubing acts as a heat radiator.

That about completes the setup description.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 08:12:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04269;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:10:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:10:43 -0800
Message-Id: <199812011607.LAA00564 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 98 11:12:52 -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: <"L3J7Z1.0.d21.3K1Ps" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25119
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Schaffer wrote:

>Increasing the number of current conductors does not generate energy.

An yet the experimental evidence that Brown puts forth states clearly 
that there is excess energy, yet he does not call it "excess" -- he just 
comes up with a formula for the "magnetic energy" associated with 
electrons of a certain KE.  

Scott should ask Paul Brown if EarthTech could test one of these. For 
that matter we'd like to see one too, but we are busy, busy with other 
testing for now.

Best, 

Gene Mallove

NERL

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 09:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA28800;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:06:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:06:12 -0800
Posted-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:03:16 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <36640870.66E39A4D verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 17:17:04 +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: An electrogravity paper (eprint:physics/9811055 "Gravitation from electrodynamics")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jPPQN2.0.w17.482Ps" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25120
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

physics/9811055

From: Igor Boulyjenkov <iboulyje chat.carleton.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:28:29 GMT   (45kb)

Gravitation from electrodynamics

Authors: Igor E. Boulyjenkov

The electrodynamic references make Einstein's relativity a self-contained theory, which independently reproduces Machian mechanics in its nonrelativistic limit. Becoming free from the Newtonian references, general relativity explains the measured gravitat

ional phenomena in flat three-space, overcomes the conventional difficulties for electromagnetic origin of gravitation, and leads to the gauge-invariant electrogravity. Laboratory tests might be used to verify the proposed covariant unification with the e

lectromagnetic dilation and compression of time.


Note that Puthoff's paper is referenced [33].
Availabe from xxx.lanl.gov
Regards, hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 10:09:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25879;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:08:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:08:26 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981201120512.00b069d4 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 12:05:12 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <199812011607.LAA00564 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"48heS.0.HK6.Q23Ps" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25121
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:12 12/1/98 -0000, E.F. Mallove wrote:

>An yet the experimental evidence that Brown puts forth states clearly 
>that there is excess energy, yet he does not call it "excess" -- he just 
>comes up with a formula for the "magnetic energy" associated with 
>electrons of a certain KE.  

Indeed there is energy in the magnetic field surrounding a high-speed
electron but this is not a surprising fact, nor should that magnetic energy
be considered an "additional" energy.  Electron energies are typically
measured in electron-volts.  This unit of energy is defined as the total
energy gain of an electron that is allowed to accelerate from one plate in
vacuum to another plate that has a positive potential 1 volt higher than
the first plate.  Clearly all forms of energy that the electron gains are
therefore included in the electron-volt.

A 1.1 Ci Sr-90 source emits a total of 18 milliwatts of power in the form
of high-speed electrons (equal numbers of 0.546 MeV and 2.282 MeV
electrons). If Paul Brown has actually produced 75 watts of electrical
power from such a source he should definitely describe it as "excess"...a
factor of about 4200 times more power than the source actually emits.

>Scott should ask Paul Brown if EarthTech could test one of these.

I certainly will.  We could obtain the necessary radioactive materials
license with relative ease.  But first, I'm waiting for him to respond to
the fundamental question I raised: HOW do the betas ADD to the circuit EMF
so that "all of the power dissipated in the load is not drawn from the
battery".



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 Dec  1 12:26:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02227;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:24:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:24:59 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:23:54 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981201120512.00b069d4 mail.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981201113715.23421C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"C9O7Q.0.ZY.R25Ps" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25122
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Scott Little wrote:

> But first, I'm waiting for him to respond to the fundamental question I
> raised: HOW do the betas ADD to the circuit EMF so that "all of the
> power dissipated in the load is not drawn from the battery". 

That's a much better question than questions involving current.  The metal
is resistive, so it deccelerates the drift of current carriers. 
Regardless of whether there are new carriers generated, if excess ENERGY
is appearing in the circuit, carriers are experiencing negative
resistance, and the energy must appear as a backwards EMF across that
special wire. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Tue Dec  1 20:23:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA06725;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:21:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:21:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981201231109.00c3c4a0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 23:11:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic. The World's Fastest Duck
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"64QYg.0.me1.g0CPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25123
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi.

I want to hear the conversation between the tech and the CO. 

"Now, we want you to take this stepladder, climb up
to the business end of this atomic cannon, and stick your
head in while we load a shell."

"Yes Sir!"

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 20:40:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16594;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:38:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:38:40 -0800
Message-ID: <19981202043730.3041.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:37:30 -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: <"aEtf92.0.w24.FHCPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25124
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill Beaty wrote:

[snip]
> 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.  [snip]  At negative resistance, oscillations
> should grow, but how can the waves move in a "time reversed" fashion?

Waves grow in amplitude as they propagate through a negative
resistance medium, like an active laser medium. It's just the opposite
of waves decaying as they propagate through a positive resistance
medium.

IMO, I would not spend too much time trying to develop theories of a
"Brown effect" when we have no description of it! Nor do we know if it
is real, beyond Brown's word. Also, I would not call this a "Brown
effect" until we have some evidence that there really is an effect.

Back when Brown's remediation first came out in IE, I exchanged a few
emails with him. He seems open and honest. However, I thought he
tended to ignore the consequences of real numbers applied to his
ideas. IMO. 
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 21:21:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04671;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:15:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:15:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3664CD02.7DF2 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:15:46 -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: Pitkanen: CF research & theory  12.1.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g5Ty93.0.s81.4qCPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25125
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>From Quantum-Mind Digest
Subject: [q-mind] Cold-fusion, Bio-fusion, Bio-catalysts and
Bio-superconductivity -- Matti Pitkanen
  Date:  Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:27:10 +0100
  From:  Jan Pieter Verhey <jverhey GYRAL.COM>

From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka pcu.helsinki.fi>

Subject: cold-fusion, bio-fusion, bio-catalysts, & bio-superconductivity

The first claim for cold fusion [PonsF] dates
back to March 23, 1989, when Pons and Fleichman announced that
nuclear fusion, producing usable amounts of heat, could be induced to
take place on a table-top by electrolyzing heavy water and  using
electrodes  made of Pd and platinum.  Various laboratories allover the
world tried to reproduce the experiments.  The poor reproducibility
and the absence of  the typical side products of nuclear fusion (gamma
rays and  neutrons)  led soon to the conlusion (represented in the
dramatic session of American Physical Society May 1, 1989) that nuclear
fusion cannot explain the heat production.  Main stream scientists made
final conclusions about the subject of 'cold fusion' and cold fusion
people became a  pariah class of the scientific community.

The work with cold fusion however continued and gradually situation has
changed. It became clear that nuclear reaction products, mainly ^4He,
are present. Gradually  also the reasons for the poor reproducibility of
the experiments became better understood. A representative example about
the change of  the attitudes is the article of Schwinger [Schwinger] in
which cold fusion  is taken seriously. The article also demonstrates 
that the counter  arguments of hot fusion people are based on the
implicit assumption that  hot fusion theory describes cold fusion
despite the fact that the physical situations are radically  different. 
The development on the experimental side has been based on techniques
involving the use of catalysis, nanotechnology,  electrolysis, glow
discharge and  ultrasonic cavitation.  There   are now public
demonstrations of cold fusion reactors, whose output energy  far exceeds
input energy and commercial applications are under intensive 
development,  see for instance  the homepage of  Russ George [rgeorge],
for whom I am grateful for informing me about the recent state of cold
fusion.

Rather remarkably, also the production  of heavier elements has been
detected [Rothwell] and this makes the explanation of the effect even
more difficult in standard physics context and definitely excludes the
explanations claiming that some chemical process is the source of the
excess heat.  The possibility of nuclear transmutation also suggests the
possibility to transform ordinary nuclear wastes into non-radioactive
nuclei and the first method achieving this has already been reported
[wastes].

There is also some evidence for high temperature super
conductivity associated with deuterium loaded palladium [Rothwell].
Good representations about the subject of cold fusion and references to
the experimental work can be found at various cold fusion
web-sites [coldf,infinite,coldbib,rgeorge]. Also the articles of J.
Rothwell [Rothwell] and the excellent review article of E. Storms 
[freview] are recommended.

It has  become clear that cold fusion differs from hot fusion
in several respects:  gamma rays  are not produced and the flux of
neutrons is much lower than predicted by standard nuclear physics (these
features are very wellcome from the point of view  of  the technological
applications).  Together with the fact that Coulomb wall does not allow
the occurrence of cold fusion at all in the standard physics context, 
this forces the  conclusion that new physics must  be involved.

It seem that TGD indeed could provide this new physics.
The key elements of the model are following:

a) Trojan horse mechanism, which allows to circumvent Coulomb wall.
The interacting nuclei simply feed their em charges at different
spacetime sheets and therefore they do not 'see' each other's Coulomb
wall and fusion reaction becomes possible at low energies. Same
mechanism could also explain the fact that used cathode materials as
excellent catalysts. Perhaps also  good catalysts make  it possible for
reactants to overcome electronic Coulomb wall forbidding chemical
reactions to occur. Biosystems are full of excellent catalysts and there
are two books claiming that biofusion occurs  [biofusion1,biofusion2].
Perhaps biosystems could some day base their metabolism on cold fusion!

b) Coherent photon exchange action of D nuclei with Cooper pairs
of the exotic super conductor formed by the D-loaded cathode material
(say Palladium).    The coherence of this  photon exhange interaction
implies that the fastests channels of cold fusion involve always photon
exchange. This in turn explains why the channels in which ^4He
production is accompanied by gamma ray are effectively absent. One can
also understand why the production of ^3He+n and ^3H+p is slow process
and why neutron flux is small. Also nuclear transmutations of the nuclei
of cathode material are predicted. Again, the basic hypothesis in TGD
inspired model of biosystem as macroscopic quantum system is that
biosystems are exotic super conductors, the mechanism of super
conductivity being classical em interaction between electron and
'wormholes' generating excitation of wormholes BE condensate (rather 
than photon).

The techonological  consequences of cold fusion would be immense.
For instance:

a) Anyone could have his/her personal cold fusion power plant.
For instance, electric cars would become possible (no noise, no
radiactive wastes).

b)  Nuclear trasmutations make possible to produce routinely any
needed metals. No need for mining industry.

c) The energy problems of undeveloped countries would be solved.

TGD predicts a lot of new physics relevant to biosystems as
macroscopic quantum systems and at this moment there is evidence
for almost all predicted macroscopic quantum phases.

a) Quantum antenna hypothesis stating that lightlike vacuum currents
associated with various linear biostructures generate coherent photons.
Evidence: biophotons, generation of coherent light in sonoluminescence,
the chemical anomaly in which stirring of water  leads to occurrence
of water to oxygen and hydrogen at room temperature (see earlier
posting).

b) Exotic form of electron super conductivity
Evidence: cold fusion without production of gammas and neutrons.
There is also other evidence for super conductitivy in biosystems.

c) Neutrino super conductivity and classical long range
Z0 fields.
Evidence: the explanation of tritium beta decay anomaly involves
in crucial manner neutrino super conductivity. Also the explanation
of the acceleration anomaly of spacecrafts involves in essential
manner neutrinos and Z0 force.

d) Wormhole BE condensates.
Evidence: the interaction of electrons and neutrinos
with charged wormholes is mediated by classical gauge fields
and creates Cooper pairs.

For more details about TGD inspired model of cold fusion
see the article on my homepage

http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/newest.html
******

References:

[wastes]
Robert Bass (1997),
Cincinnati group announces transmutation of radiation waste into useful
metals using "table-top" energy levels!.
News Release: July, '97 New Energy News (monthly newsletter of the
Institute for New Energy), Vol. 5, No. 3.

[coldbib]
Bibliography of Cold Fusion - Chemistry Dept., Aarhus University
http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db/fusion/fusion.html.

[coldlinks]
Cold fusion links  homepage.
http://www.teleport.com/~genel/coldf.html

[Ditmire  et al]
T. Ditmire  et al (1997),  High energy ions produced
in explosions of superheated atomic clusters,  Nature vol. 386,
March 6,   p. 55.

[PonsF]
Fleischmann, M., Pons, S. and Hawkins, M. (1989).  Electrochemically
induced nuclear fusion of deuterium, J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301.
See also: ibid, 263, 187.

[rgeorge]
Russ George's homepage,
http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/saturnahome.html

[infinite]
  Infinite energy magazine homepage, 
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/.

[biofusion1]
C. L. Kervran (1972), Biological transmutations, and their applications
in chemistry, physics, biology, ecology, medicine, nutrition,
agriculture, geology, Swan House Publishing Co.

[TGD]
M. Pitk\"anen (1995) Topological Geometrodynamics. Internal Report
HU-TFT-IR-95-4 (Helsinki University).
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/tgd.html.

[padTGD]
M. Pitk\"anen (1995)  Topological Geometrodynamics and p-Adic Numbers.
Internal Report HU-TFT-IR-95-5 (Helsinki University).
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/padtgd.html.

[cbook]
M. Pitk\"anen (1998)  TGD inspired theory
of consciousness with applications to biosystems.
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/cbook.html.

[Rothwell]
Jed Rothwell(1996).
  Some recent developments in cold fusion,
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell/brieftec.htm.
  Report on The Second International Low Energy Nuclear
  Reactions Conference Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas, September
13-14, 1996.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell/ilenrc2s.htm,

Review of the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion
(ICCF6),
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell/iccf6rev.htm

[Schwinger]
J. Schwinger (1992),  Energy Transfer In Cold Fusion and
Sonoluminescence,
http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/coldfusion/schwinger.html.

[Stenger]
V. J. Stenger (1995),  ESP and Cold Fusion: parallels in pseudoscience,
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cold.txt.

[Storms]
E. Storms (1996),  Review of cold fusion effect.
http://www.jse.com/storms/1.html.

[biofusion2]
P. Tompkins and C. Bird (1973),  The secret life of plants,
Harper \& Row, New York.

\bibitem[Goodstein]{critical Whatever happened to cold fusion?
http://www.caltech.edu:80/%7Egoodstein/fusion.html.
********

With Best,
Matti Pitkanen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 21:43:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16580;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:41:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:41:09 -0800
Message-ID: <3664D300.1C86 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:41:20 -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: Murray: Pitkanen: CF research & theory  12.1.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ckBQH3.0.z24.qBDPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25126
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 1, 1998   Hello Matti Pitkanen,    This is my private list for
civil critical discussion about cold fusion and new energy research. As
an M.I.T. educated layman, I have studied cold fusion reports since
1989, and attended the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Conference in Sept., 1986, by Texas A&M University.  I was very
enthusiasitic, but by a year later I became an objective skeptic.  I
would very much like the wonderful results of CF research to be real,
but the most effective strategy of interpretation for me is to assume
that some artifact is always involved.  I am sure of this with regard to
all the reports at the Conference.  I'll send you a few of the critiques
posted on Vortex-L discussion group.  I am glad to peruse the very
creative and expansive theoretical ideas you present.  Have you
considered the ion band state theory of Scott and Talbot Chubb, which
has been discussed at great length the last two months?  They have a
complete report on their web page.  Kirk Shanahan has proposed a new
hypothesis for a recombination artifact that could explain most
well-known excess heat claims.   Regards, Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 21:53:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA28610;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003301be1db7$1a92c6c0$53441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Microwave Fusion in a Boron Carbide Cavity?
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:45:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"kROHs1.0.y-6.bLDPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25127
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A 2.45 Gigahertz Magnetron feeding a Boron Carbide (B4C) Cavity or Waveguide
filled with Deuterium at millimeter
pressures Might create enough "Spalled" (or other) neutrons
that can react with the 19% Boron 10:

n + Boron 10 ---> He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev.

With reasonable Magnetron Power, the EM Field, E = (377*watts/meter^2)^1/2
could get high enough to create a discharge in the D2 gas in  a Cylindrical
Waveguide and possibly create Dineutrons or a pair of neutrons (light or ZPE
pumped) from electron interaction with the deuterons.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 21:57:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA29896;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003801be1db7$a7e6e420$53441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic. The World's Fastest Duck
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:50:20 -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: <"zgnC83.0.1J7.OPDPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25128
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Off Topic. The World's Fastest Duck

Keith wrote:


>Hi.
>
>I want to hear the conversation between the tech and the CO.
>
>"Now, we want you to take this stepladder, climb up
>to the business end of this atomic cannon, and stick your
>head in while we load a shell."
>
>"Yes Sir!"

Wouldn't you, when you know that there is going to be a "Light at the end of
the Tunnel"? :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>K.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 21:58:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23655;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:56:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:56:27 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 05:56:21 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3667d4b2.176363511 24.192.1.20>
References: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OXahP2.0.Xn5.AQDPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25129
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:38:20 -0800, aki ix.netcom.com wrote:
[snip]
>A length of it is coiled (about five turns) and enclosed in a large
>vented verticle plexiglass cylinder.
> 
>The cylinder is sectioned into two parts to accomodate the electrolyte
>resevoir below the coiled tubing. The return electrolyte tubing drains
>into the open vented resevoir which also contains the circulating pump.
>
>The temperature controlled fan is mounted on top of the column. The
>coiled clear tubing acts as a heat radiator.
>
>That about completes the setup description.
>
>-AK-
I have a question and a comment about this cylinder. 
I believe someone previously mentioned that there were air holes in
the side of the cylinder. Is this so? If so, then presumably air drawn
in through these holes would blow across the surface of the water in
the reservoir, considerably enhancing evaporative cooling of the warm
water, and resulting perhaps in a considerably larger cooling effect
than Mitchell Jones was able to obtain using tubing.
In short, the implication here is that the major portion of the
cooling didn't take place in the tubing in the cooling tower, but in
the reservoir itself.
Have I missed something?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  1 22:29:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA07114;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:28:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:28:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3664DE13.B33 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 23:28:35 -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: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  12.1.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gMLbW1.0.4l1.RuDPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25130
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Chubb: Storms: Shanahan: CF debates 11.25.98
      Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:34:46 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

Answer by Scott Chubb to Dick Blue

>> 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. 

There is an important distinction between what you have focused on and
the physics associated with this statement.  The behavior of the r1-r2
dependence in the wave function, which normally can be ignored in free
space D-D collisions, except in the electromagnetic interaction, has
also been ignored by you in your discussions.

There is a second key point: the interaction is self-induced and
associated with the close r1-r2 separation limit of the electromagnetic
interaction. This interaction is usually "treated" as an empirically
known, but poorly defined form of interaction.  Again, this point has
been largely ignored by you.  And we did not emphasize it in our
discussions with the solitary referee who provided a meaningful review
of our paper.

There is a third key point: the theory has been published in refereed
journals other than Physical Review, and it has been favorably reviewed
(for example by individuals from Cal Tech) who have suggested that a
major problem with the theory seems to be not so much that there is
anything wrong with the theory but that scientists have simply
concluded, out-of-hat, that the theory relates to non-existent
phenomena.  In particular, for example, it has been extremely difficult
to obtain meaningful dialogue in many quarters with regard to theory,
and it has been suggested that preconceived bias has played a role in
this.

>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?  

Yes and no; the starting point of the theory is well-founded phenomena
that have their most pronounced impact at lattice spacings of several
Angstroms. But there is an important point associated with the
underlying coherence: it relates to large transfers of momentum that are
shared coherently over many lattice spacings.

>
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.

This is not true, necessarily.  The governing factor is associated with
the nature of the interaction.  Certain interactions maintain this
coherence over large domain sizes.  The governing variables are
associated with modes of energy release through quantum mechanical
overlap.  In particular, for example, when "one attempts" to "excite" a
process at a particular location in which the energy (momentum) is
introduced at a level that is smaller than the minimimal amount that is
necessary for the excitation to occur, the solid as a whole can absorb
the momentum without exciting the system. The way that this is
accomplished is non-local.

The key point is that the interaction and the quantum mechanical overlap
(not per se the degree of disorder or the length scales that are
involved) defines whether or not the interaction is local or non-local.

>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.

As I said, the nature of the interaction dictates whether or not
coherence can play a role.  The claim is that through self-induced
interaction, the coherence can be important.  And it can be important
here because energy can be minimized (and periodic order maintained)
only through the very specific, coherent interaction that we have
suggested.

>So what does it mean to say that the internal nuclear wave function
>possesses Bloch symmetry relative to the lattice spacing?  

I did not say that all internal nuclear wave functions are Bloch
symmetric.  I said that the r1-r2 coordinate maintains this symmetry. 
It does so because the electromagnetic wave functions, which also depend
on this coordinate, maintain this symmetry, and if the nuclear portions
of the wave function do not also maintain it, there would be a breakdown
in the separability between nuclear and electromagnetic wave functions.

>Remember we
>are not talking about points in space.  We are talking about particles
>that move.  

We are talking about wave functions and quantum mechanics.  This is step
zero in the discussion.  If this is not understood from the outset,
there is little else that can be understood.

>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.

I am also talking about interactions between deuterons.

>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." 

I repeat:  you are using a definition of internal coordinate that is
inconsistent with what is required by the theory.  The r1-r2 dependence
does not "only live" on the scale of the nuclear interaction.  It is
important on all scales in the problem.  

In normal nuclear physics, action occurs in the absence of interactions
involving coherence for resonant interaction through periodic order.  As
a consequence, the special importance of this variable in the strong
interaction is ignored.  In particular, conventional nuclear physics
treats the dependence of this variable in the electromagnetic
interaction (where it enters explicitly) using separable argument (for
example, Gamow theory), and only implicitly, in the strong interaction. 
In particular, in the strong interaction, this treatment fails to
distinguish the behavior of this coordinate from the behavior of the
remaining coordinates.  

In other words, you are mixing apples and oranges with respect to your
comments about "internal" coordinates.  In particular, we have
identified a dependence in a variable that you would ignore because it
is not necessary to include it in situations that you are accustomed to
dealing with.  You are then going further by asserting that we are
claiming some dependence of all internal degrees of freedom on coherence
through resonant interaction from periodic order.  Although such a
dependence may occur for some forms of interaction, it is not embodied
in the forms of interaction envisioned by us, and, in point of fact, I
really do not believe that these forms of interaction ever apply to
these other degrees of freedom.

>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.

Although thermalization may be important, you are misreading an
important point.  You continue to equate "internal" coordinate (distance
between nucleon and center of mass of nucleus) with the "internal
coordinate" associated with deuteron-deuteron separation where we are
suggesting Bloch symmetry applies.  The deuteron-deuteron separation
variable is dominated at large scales by electromagnetic interaction and
at small scales by nuclear interaction.  The assertion is that in
general it is not possible (except through a very limited set of
interactions) to maintain the difference in scale-size between the two
forms of interaction.  Your picture simply ignores the key point.  In
particular, to maintain the separability between the interactions, what
evolves effectively is the following:  "you attempt to jiggle the
nucleus, but because the electromagnetic and nuclear interactions are
not separable," the entire solid moves (recoils)."

>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.  

Technically, this is not true, using the definition of "pure" state that
is commonly used in discussions of quantum entanglement.  Disregarding
this distinction, however, all that is required is that the self-induced
state (associated only with the D+ in ion band states) occupants
coherently occupy spin states and that their self-induced potential
energy be periodic for a finite period of time.  The amount of time that
is required is system dependent.

>However, there is nothing about the PdD lattice that gives
>much to define a prefered spin orientation.  

For the self-induced state, crytalline boundaries can (and probably do)
accomplish this.

>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. 

I have suggested in the past that attempting to measure the magnetic
moments of D+ in ion band states using NMR, it may be possible to
trigger Cold Fusion reactions.

>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.

As I said, it is necessary to induce the coherence only in the band
state portion of the D+ population.  To occupy this state requires
special preparation.  It may in fact be useful to use magnetic fields to
obtain this condition.

>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.

It is nice to see that you are paying attention to timescale.  This I
believe is key, and it is very true that the lifetime of the
self-induced state and its potential are key variables in this.  A
second, probably critical variable is the chemical potential of the
underlying solid.  This is because the chemical potential sets the zero
of energy of the band state.  And although you assert we have had
nothing to say about this, in point of fact, it touches on the starting
point of theory.  Specifically, the theory makes use of important
philosophical statement: without disrupting the environment, it is never
possible to determine how many D+'s are within the solid and how many
occupy ion band states.  But nature does not care about this.  It treats
the environment in a well-prescribed way, based on quantum mechanics,
regardless of what we say.  Mathematically, we can implement these
philosophical statements by using the idea of a chemical potential and
the concept of averaging.

>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?

The nature of the interaction and the associated quasi-equilibrium
(near-order preserving) conditions required by it are the reasons for
this, as you seem to imply.

>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.

Right on!  And see my comments about chemical potential;  also, note
that the electrostatic zero (defined by the energy required to move a
point charge from the surface of the solid to infinity) is also involved
in this.

>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.  

Not exactly--I said maintaining Born-Oppenheimer separability, Bloch
symmetry, and eliminating latent heat are required for this to be the
case; and this is the reason there are no neutrons emitted.  It also is
the reason ground state - ground state interactions are involved.  (For
this reason, the 4He actually is not in an excited state at all.)

>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?

Good questions!  Overlap between initial and final states requires
Born-Oppenheimer separability and maintenance of periodic order along
the lines I have suggested.  (This is a long time limit of the theory.)
However, if periodic order is suddenly disrupted, it may be possible for
alternative, competing timescales to become involved.

>I see those as some good reasons to question Scott Chubb's assumption
>of Bloch symmetry with respect to nuclear coordinates.

See above--Also, I'd like to say that I thought especially these last
comments to be well-thought out and interesting.

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 05:15:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28311;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 05:14:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 05:14:45 -0800
Message-ID: <006c01be1df5$11d7c920$53441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ZPE-Deuteron-Proton Chain?
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:09:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ELm4z2.0.Hw6.4rJPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25131
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Can you fill in the blanks, Hal?

1, e- + Deuteron + ZPE --->  2 neutrons + neutrino

2, 2 neutrons + 2 Protons ---> 2 Deuterons + Energy

3, 2 e- + 2 Deuterons + ZPE ---> 4 neutrons + 2 neutrinos

4, 4 neutrons + 4 Boron 10 ---> 4 He + 4 Li7 + 4*(2.78 mev)

Or... :-)

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 05:38:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA01508;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 05:37:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 05:37:18 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36653532.243E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:40:18 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
References: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com> <3667d4b2.176363511@24.192.1.20>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KjVl92.0.PN.DAKPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25132
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

December 2, 1998

Vortex:

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> I have a question and a comment about this cylinder.
> I believe someone previously mentioned that there were air holes in
> the side of the cylinder. 

It is visible in the photographs at Logajan's website.

>Is this so? If so, then presumably air drawn
> in through these holes would blow across the surface of the water in
> the reservoir, --

Not so, but some air current effects probably exists by the proximity of
the air vent of the resevoir to the cooling air currents.

>-- considerably enhancing evaporative cooling of the warm
> water, and resulting perhaps in a considerably larger cooling effect
> than Mitchell Jones was able to obtain using tubing.

The number of encircling vent holes are on the bottom part of the
cylinder enclosing the heat radiating coils coming from the columns. Now
the fan mounted on the top of the cylinder either could be sucking the
ambiant air through the vent holes or blowing through them. I tend to
think it was sucking air through them. The lower second part of the
cylinder looks to have a black plastic cover over the resevoir to which
the tubing is attached. It is not wide open to the fan air current. And
it is not clear where the resevoir vent opening is. Whatever the overall
cooling effects being achieved by the fan action, power supplied to it
is resevoir temperature controlled.

> In short, the implication here is that the major portion of the
> cooling didn't take place in the tubing in the cooling tower, but in
> the reservoir itself.

In that setting, I think it is some combination of both but more in the
cooling tower.

> Have I missed something?

Yes, that is more data for which the CETI demontration was not setup to
display or intended to. 

The Power Gen '95 CETI demonstration setup was displayed to simply
demonstrate generally overunity excess delta T heat effect. It was set
up to generate serious inquiries from the public sector involved in
'POWER GENeration'. It was certainly not a strict laboratory setup to
completely justify or replicate their earlier finding of excess heat
over chemistry and electricity. Patterson and Cravens were already
confident of this. And the demo unit was robust enough to overcome its
limitations to show that excess heat and generate inquiries. It was not
set up to deliberately mislead. 

Presumably, serious inquiries invited a visit to the CETI laboratory for
detailed demonstrations and convincing.

Now I could be wrong. I did not closely look at all CETI demonstrators
and participants to see if they were wide-eyed and overly enthusiastic.
:) Damn!

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 06:45:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19645;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:43:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 06:43:45 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981202093634.00693d64 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 09:36:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
In-Reply-To: <36653532.243E ix.netcom.com>
References: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com>
 <3667d4b2.176363511 24.192.1.20>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lzGOr1.0.to4.X8LPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25133
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira Kawasaki writes:

	The number of encircling vent holes are on the bottom part of
	the cylinder enclosing the heat radiating coils coming from the
	columns. Now the fan mounted on the top of the cylinder either
	could be sucking the ambient air through the vent holes or
	blowing through them.

It was sucking air through the holes and out the top. Years ago I spoke
with an expert on cooling systems. He said this is a textbook design for a
cooling chamber. It is highly efficient because the holes of the bottom
impart a spin to the air as it comes in, so the air strikes the hose
several times before it exits. Pushing more air through a straight chamber
with a stronger fan would not work as well. With less efficient cooling the
water temperature in the tube would have stabilized at a higher level.


	The lower second part of the cylinder looks to have a black
	plastic cover over the reservoir . . .

The lid.


	. . . to which the tubing is attached. It is not wide open to
	the fan air current. And it is not clear where the reservoir
	vent opening is.

The reservoir vent opening was the hole for the tube in the lid. The hole
was larger than needed for a tube.


	Whatever the overall cooling effects being achieved by the fan
	action, power supplied to it is reservoir temperature
	controlled.

Was it? I thought it was controlled at a single speed with an on/off switch.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 08:40:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30930;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:38:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:38:35 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36655F75.4B22 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 07:40:37 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
References: <3663F14C.233C ix.netcom.com>
	 <3667d4b2.176363511 24.192.1.20> <3.0.1.32.19981202093634.00693d64@pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BuI-X1.0.zY7.AqMPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25136
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

December 2, 1998

Vortex,

Hi Jed, you wrote:

<snip>
> Was it? I thought it was controlled at a single speed with an on/off
> switch.

Yes there is an on-off switch on the control box. 

There was a cartridge heater and two thermocouples dangling in the
resevoir. One was to the heater controller the other was to the fan
controller. 

The fan switch wires inside the clear control box went to Omega Model
CN370 dual diplay controller. This is indicated on the diagram. 

In some photographs not displayed on Logajan's website, you can see the
second thermocouple and trace out the wiring inside the clear plexiglass
control box. I believe 'Gene got a complete set of pictures along with
Logajan. Not too sure now --- long ago.
 
Of course I can stand to be corrected. I describe them as I see them,
with magnifying glasses sometimes.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 10:44:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22352;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 10:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 10:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <366591DE.7CA6 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:15:42 -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: Some clarifications: (Re: Power Gen Mystery Solved)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"akMEN.0.7T5.GdOPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25137
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 2, 1998

Vortex,

Looked up Omega Model CN 370 temperature controller in the Omega
catalog.

The fan motor controller values shown in the diagram are:

The top electronic display is the electrolyte fluid temperature. This
was 98.8 fahrenheit at the time. 

The lower manually set display is the set point temperature for the
controller. It shows the setting at 50 degrees fahrenheit.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 11:35:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01674;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:31:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:31:43 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981202143247.01655590 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 14:32:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981130205725.28123B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981130215522.009b41f0 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rGjCN2.0.0Q.VMPPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25138
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:28 PM 11/30/98 -0800, William Beaty wrote:
 
   Scott Little asked:
> 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?

   Actually about 2/3 to 3/4 c (2E8 m/s to 2.25E8 m/s) for the best
conductors.  As pointed out by several others, the higher the frequency of
any modulation, the less it penetrates the conductor.

>                              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.

    Negative resistance results in aplification of the signal.  Look up
travelling wave tubes (TWTs) for a good explanation of negative resistance.
Why isn't negative resistance a source of free energy?  Because every way
we know of producting it requires providing the extra power.  It is just
nice to be able to feed in DC and use it to amplify RF signals.

>At zero resistance, the speed of the waves goes to zero (a perfect
>conductor is a perfect shield.)  At negative resistance, oscillations
>should grow,...

    They do it is called an oscillator. ;-)  You can easily buy RF and audio
oscillators.

>  ...but how can the waves move in a "time reversed" fashion?

    They don't, but this is why EE's spend lots of time studying complex math.
First, consider a superconductor.  DC resistance is zero, impedence is (in
bulk) infinite.  The only way to get a current flowing inside a
superconductor is to start the current flowing, then cool the
superconductor past the critical temperature.  (Back to the discussion
about skin effect--for most purposes, a current flowing on the skin of a
superconductor is just as useful.  But if you need a lot of current, you
have to maximize the surface, not the volume.)

>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. 

      Why does this sound like you are talking about a laser or a maser?
Because you do get a negative resistance effect. In a laser it is easier to
think of it as negative opacity--the laser apparently absorbs considerably
less light than empty space.  You want to use laser without end mirrors for
this type of image enhancement.  I think some astronomers tried to use
(non-optically pumped) lasers this way before CCDs took over.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 12:10:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10549;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981202115103.00a0fe20 pop3.oro.net>
X-Sender: Tessien pop3.oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:51:05 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien oro.net>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"j9Np63.0.ka2.lfPPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25139
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


Scott 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?
>
>Scott Little 

Mention has been made regarding the way signals propogate through
conductors, and the skin effect was also mentioned.  Here is a little fyi.

The velocity of propogation is slowed in conductors depending on the
dielectric used.  For air, or vacuum, the velocity is very close to the
speed of light.  Note that this is NOT the velocity that electrons move
through the conductor, as they move really slowly.  This is the velocity
that an em wave moves forward at.

For many dielectrics, the velocity can be half the speed of light.

For the skin effect, this is only important as the frequency of the signal
goes up.  It has to do with the permeability of the metal.  This is why
high frequency conductors are silver plated.  For microwave signals, the
depth of the current is only a few thousandths of an inch as I recall (it's
been 12 years since I worked with this stuff a lot on a design basis so I
would have to do a little reading to figure it out to a better accuracy.
We used to have equations to calculate an "effective" skin depth that
worked well from an engineering point of view of selecting the plating
thickness).

Your energy losses arise from reflections, resistance, and for high
frequency signals, dispersion.  Dispersion occurs because different
frequency components of the signal travel at different velocities.  For
optical fibers this is known as chromic dispersion.  Basically, it is a
result of the dieletric because a given dielectric may have different
dielectric constant values for different frequencies.  Thus, the various
frequency components of say, a square wave, will disperse from one another.
 This leads to a degradation of the signal sharpness, and to rounding of
square features.  AKA rise time degradation, for digital guys.

Basically, you can think of a wave guide visually by thinking of a window
and a flashlight.

The light is partially reflected when it hits the glass.  It is partially
reflected when it hits the far side of the glass (and ergo multiple
internal reflections ad nauseum).  those are due to "Impedance
discontinuities" at the air glass interface and are equivalent to the same
thing wherever impedance discontinuities on the order of the wavelength of
the signal are encountered.

Next, you lose energy due to "dirt" in the glass so think of it as being
smoked glass.  The analogy is using PVC dielectric which is "dirty" vs
teflon which has a good dielectric constant, vs using gore-tex which is
just teflon which is puffed up and filled mostly with air, so that you get
a very low dielectric constant.  Gore-tex is one of the best dielectrics
you could use, aside from a vacuum or just air (which don't keep signal and
ground conductors separated from one another worth beans!)

So, you have reflections at impedance changes or gradients, attenuation due
to dirty glass or dielectrics, and resistive losses due to heat dissipation
in the conductor due to resistance.

For low frequency signals, the current moves through the bulk of the
conductor, and for high frequency signals, the current is out on the
surface (approaching high Mhz or Ghz f's)

Later, Ross



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 13:13:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08184;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:05:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:05:26 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130505b28b6b877db9 [38.14.54.64]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 16:15:03 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Report from Joseph Newman, Scottsdale, Arizona
Resent-Message-ID: <"zbko43.0.o_1.LkQPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25140
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Report from Joseph Newman, Scottsdale, Arizona

December 1, 1998

To the People of the World:

Honest and true scientifically-minded individuals are now verifying my
life's work in France and Germany as did more than 30 scientists in the
early 1980s.

My production Motor, which I will be shortly demonstrating to the world,
absolutely proves my life's work for humanity.  This opposition to this
technology also verifies the conspiracy of the "old boy power networks" and
their pawns, the typical politicians of both the Republican and Democratic
parties.  These individuals have conspired against YOU - the People - just
as they have in making a concerted effort to really solve the Y2K problem.

Who has and will continue to suffer in both above-described instances?  YOU
the People!

When I operate my production Motor at a given voltage - without a capacitor
and with a simple, wire-wrapped amp-meter - the "SPARK" which occurs at the
commutator breaks is VERY big!  The current which registers on the amp
meter at the instant of the big SPARK consists of HIGH current!

Then, when a large capacitor is hooked across the circuit, the Motor rpm
speed increases by 27% while, at the same instant the current which
registers on the ampmeter DECREASES by an impressive 200% than that
registered without said capacitor.  At the same time, the SPARKING at the
commutator breaks is DECREASED by a highly significant 200%, or more!  This
process occurs in accordance with E = mc^2.

Moreover, the back voltage from the collapsing magnetic field is so high
that a 2.25 inch SPARK repeatedly "jumps" from the ceramic insulators
comprising a 15-lb capacitor to the metal housing the capacitor EVERY SEVEN
SECONDS.  THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE 5,000 VOLT CAPACITOR BECOMES
OVERCHARGED REPEATEDLY - EVEN THOUGH ONLY 100 WATTS ARE INPUTED FROM THE
D.C. BATTERY PACK!

NOTE:  The above results prove that the Motor's "SPARK POWER" came from the
collapsing magnetic field of my Motor and NOT from the battery pack!  This
is true because - as the SPARK is more effectively captured by the
capacitor, then the power use is DECREASED by 200% while the Motor's power
and rpm is INCREASED by 27%.

The above clearly proves that the Back Power from the Motor is 200% MORE
than from the battery pack!

NOW is the time for all honest and caring people to come forward and assist
me in helping to profusely produce this "God" given Energy Machine for the
people of this nation and the world prior to the Y2K's potentially
disastrous problems for humanity on the 1st day of 2000 A.D.


[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman

NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
11445 East Via Linda, Suite 2416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
(602) 657-3722


________________________________

Posted by Evan Soule'

To communicate with Joseph Newman, please contact him at the above
address/telephone number.  Thanks!

website: www.josephnewman.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 15:29:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16242;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:25:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:25:53 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:25:46 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981202115103.00a0fe20 pop3.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981202142848.2655A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"dOm5o1.0.iz3.0oSPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25141
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

> Scott 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?
> >Scott Little 
> 
> Mention has been made regarding the way signals propogate through
> conductors, and the skin effect was also mentioned.  Here is a little fyi.
> 
> The velocity of propogation is slowed in conductors depending on the
> dielectric used.  

No, you are discussing propagation in a dielectric (the same as
propagation ALONG a conductor.)  With Dr. Brown's device, energy (in the
form of EM fields) would be originating within the metal and travelling
outwards to the surface: a kind of inside-out skin effect.  Once it
managed to get to the surface, it would contribute to normal EM in the
circuit, and would propagate at a goodly fraction of c.  But while it was
propagating within the metal, the EM energy would move at the speed of an
automobile, not the speed of a radio wave. 


> For air, or vacuum, the velocity is very close to the
> speed of light.  Note that this is NOT the velocity that electrons move
> through the conductor, as they move really slowly.  This is the velocity
> that an em wave moves forward at.

True, but there is a third velocity here: the velocity of propagation of
e-fields INTO the wires.  This velocity would determine resonant
frequencies of Brown's device (otherwise the resonances would be in the
VHF range, not audio range.)  The "skin effect" exists because, at the
instant a current along any wire is forced to change, only the surface of
the metal is exposed to the changing e-fields, and only the surface
current actually changes.  After awhile (milliseconds, depending on wire
diameter), the e-fields penetrate into the wire.  More and deeper charges
become involved in the current.  Eventually the fields and the current
have penetrated through the entire wire.  But this occurs in milliseconds,
not in nanoseconds, and so the EM waves which move INWARDS into the wire
are propagating at velocities of cm per second. 

To all:

If the radioactive wires in Dr. Brown's device are fairly thick, then we
might expect that they'd form resonant EM cavities, and would burst into
many-mode internal oscillation like a pumped laser rod, but with audio
frequency EM.  If an external tuned circuit was connected to a block of
"amplifier metal" and tuned to one of the resonances, the whole circuit
would oscillate.  Or, if the "amplifier metal" took the form of a very
thin wire, it should only have longitudinal modes.  But the oscillations
would still be very low in frequency because they would be driven from
within the wire, and should suffer a sort of inside-out skin effect.

Yeah, I realize that this is all wild speculation.  Still got your
brainstorm helmets on? :)  However, if Brown's device is real, we should
expect that it behaves in certain ways, and should expect that perhaps the
same effects appear in the natural world.  It would NOT provide energy
simply by increasing the number of carriers as Scott's message states. 
>From Scott's message I gain the suspicion that Dr. Brown doesn't
understand his discovery.  Or perhaps he does, and his message was a just
an over-simplified version, one aimed at non-physicists.

And yes, this would not be "free energy", it would be like a nuclear
battery.  Unless of course there was unexplained excess output.  

If electric-arc plasmas are suspected of having ZPE or transmutation
effects, perhaps we should suspect the same of "solid" plasmas in the form
of metals.  Normal wires would not do this, but a metal wire which was
"pumped" up into a negative resistance mode might behave more like an
electric arc than like a resistor.  The mental link between beta-particle
pumping and proton electrochem pumping is weirding me out!  What if CF is
electrical? 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Dec  2 17:16:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA19477;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:14:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:14:21 -0800
Message-ID: <3665DC93.46C2 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:34:27 -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: Storms: Blue: CF debate  11.26.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"irIc53.0.Bm4.iNUPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25142
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Blue: Chubb: Storms: Shanahan: CF debates 11.25.98
      Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:43:04 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich Murray wrote:

> 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
> 
Reply to Dick Blue by Ed Storms

Before I sign off for the holidays, I would like to apologize to Dick. 
I am sorry I gave you the impression that I believe you to be
unscientific or unskilled in science.  In fact, I find many of your
comments thought provoking, insightful, and useful.  The debate has been
especially helpful to me in understanding the issues which separate
skeptics and believers, and appreciating the difficulties in fitting the
observations to conventional physics. 

The problem, as I see it, is that we rub each other the wrong way.  This
results from our using a much different approach.  In this field, I look
at experimental results and judge them on their own merits, regardless
of their implication.  You, on the other hand, consider the implication
and raises the standard of judgement if the implication is unlikely in
your mind.  I emphasize the chemical and experimental aspects while you
find the nuclear and theoretical implications most important. Both
methods have merit, but a debate between people taking this contrasting
approach can be very frustrating for both parties.  We tend to talk past
each other and emphasize points having little importance to the other
person.   We both are guilty of this, and I’m sorry for my contribution
to this distraction.  I hope we can start fresh and avoid the personal
slights, however subtle,  when we resume the discussion after the
holidays. 

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 17:16:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA19522;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:14:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:14:33 -0800
Message-ID: <3665DA82.6B20 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:26:02 -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: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact  11.25.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kofuC.0.ym4.uNUPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25143
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 11.24.98
      Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to
be talking past each other.  Certain facts exist which are not a matter
of debate.  If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts
must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.

To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we
stand.

1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
location for recombination within the cell. This change produces a
change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This
model depends on several assumptions:

1. The location for recombination can change. 
2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.

These assumptions are answered by the following facts:

I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
experimental fact.

I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.

I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
an experimental fact.

>From these facts I conclude that:

1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small. 
2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
purpose, is also small.

Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
can explain excess energy.

---
You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact. 

You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general
statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.

You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss
of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an
assumption.

(Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area
exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater
effect.)

>From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct. 
You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.

----

I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location
of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any
book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his
comments.)

I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy
production.  This is an experimental fact.

>From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general
application.

You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the
location of heat production.

>From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected
by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any
experimental evidence. 

-----

You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured. 
This in a myth.  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by
some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry. 
However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles,
Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my
reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout
the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of
palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.

-----

If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me
your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.

Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general world. 
These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well
understood phenomenon. If we can not agree on some of the basic facts,
then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes
hopeless.  This is the basic problem I’m having with Rich and Dick as
well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is
pointless.  It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a
client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for
the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the
latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.

I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some
papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the
discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth
remembering with joy. 

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 18:24:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11022;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:21:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:21:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981202204455.00c339e0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 20:44:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Report from Joseph Newman, Scottsdale, Arizona
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RCSqI2.0.2i2.IMVPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25144
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:15 PM 12/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Moreover, the back voltage from the collapsing magnetic field is so high
>that a 2.25 inch SPARK repeatedly "jumps" from the ceramic insulators
>comprising a 15-lb capacitor to the metal housing the capacitor EVERY SEVEN
>SECONDS.  THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE 5,000 VOLT CAPACITOR BECOMES
>OVERCHARGED REPEATEDLY - EVEN THOUGH ONLY 100 WATTS ARE INPUTED FROM THE
>D.C. BATTERY PACK!
>
>NOTE:  The above results prove that the Motor's "SPARK POWER" came from the
>collapsing magnetic field of my Motor and NOT from the battery pack!  This
>is true because - as the SPARK is more effectively captured by the
>capacitor, then the power use is DECREASED by 200% while the Motor's power
>and rpm is INCREASED by 27%.
>
>The above clearly proves that the Back Power from the Motor is 200% MORE
>than from the battery pack!
>
>[Signed]
>Joseph Westley Newman
>

Well, capacitors are usually rated in Farads; I don't know how
to make any energy estimate based on pounds. But I'll estimate
here, say 1 microfarad ( a pretty big cap   5kV ). All caps
I have used tend to fail when charged passed their rating, so
if it survives this treatment the charge is likely not more than
5 kV. Now, given

E = 1/2 CV^2

it follows that the total stored energy is 12.5 Joules. We also
know that

P = E/T

so for T=7 sec, P=1.7 watts. 

To put this another way, a constant flow of power of ~2 watts
would produce a 5kV charge every 7 seconds. This from
an input energy of 100 watts. Remember, the energy goes up
as the square of the voltage, so my liberal estimate of 5kV
is likely in error and should be reduced. 

There seems to be room for substantial improvement here...

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  2 23:07:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07604;
	Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:05:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:05:37 -0800
Message-ID: <19981203070913.26351.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:09:13 -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: <"-w2Wp3.0.ks1.1XZPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25145
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Robert I. Eachus wrote (re speed of electrical signal propagation
along a conductor):

>    Actually about 2/3 to 3/4 c (2E8 m/s to 2.25E8 m/s) for the best
> conductors.  

No. The speed of propagation over the concudtor equals the speed of an
electromagnetic wave in the surrounding medium. If that is vacuum,
then the speed is c. Maybe you are thinking of propagation along a
coaxial cable, where the space between two conductors is typically a
solid dielectric, in which the EM wave speed is indeed 2/3 to 3/4 c.


> First, consider a superconductor.  DC resistance is zero, impedence
is (in
> bulk) infinite.  The only way to get a current flowing inside a
> superconductor is to start the current flowing, then cool the
> superconductor past the critical temperature.

More commonly, one just cools the SC. Then, bring up any kind of
magnetic field and the SC develops eddy currents to exclude the flux.
Thus, you have current in the SC. This is not normally very useful. In
order to make a persistent current (one that lasts when the magnetic
source is removed), permeate e.g. a ring of SC material with magnetic
flux while it is still warm and a normal conductor. Cool until it
becomes an SC. Then remove the flux source. The SC loop conserves the
linked flux, and a current circulates around the loop as a result.
Finally, one can wind a coil of SC material. It has two leads. Cool
the coil. Connect the leads to a power supply and apply power. The
current increases at the pure inductive rate, since there is no
resistance. This is how most practical SC magnets are made. There is
probably a set of them in a hospital near you (NMR imaging diagnostic).


Bill Beaty wrote:
>If the radioactive wires in Dr. Brown's device are fairly thick, then 
>we might expect that they'd form resonant EM cavities, and would burst 
>into many-mode internal oscillation like a pumped laser rod, but with 
>audio frequency EM.  


An EM wave in a good conductor, like a metal, is almost critically
damped. Any ringing is damped in about 1 cycle.

Another point: If one injects movng charges into bulk conductor,
although there is a bit of momentum imparted to the conductors own
charges, the MAIN effect is an induced back current. The same back emf
that makes inductance is present in bulk, just as it is everywhere
else, and the consequence is that the free charges of the conductor
are driven inductively in the opposite direction to the injected
charges. Furthermore, the induced back current is equal and opposite
to the injected current in the limit of a perfect conductor, thereby
totally cancelling the injected current. In resistive conductors the
cancelation is less than perfect. The principla at work here is that
good conductors conserve magnetic flux, and that means that the free
charges do what they have to do to conserve that flux. If there were a
change of total current, the flux might have to change! This is not
just theory. It has been measured in many kinds of plasmas. One
consequence is that it is difficult to drive current in a hot, highly
conducting plasma except by the traditional methods of a) electrodes
in contact with the plasma, or b) if the plasma is a loop, put a
transformer primary down its middle and let the plasma loop be its
secondary. Other techniques require some inventiveness, e.g. drive
current in tokamak plasmas by injecting EM waves that are absorbed in
a way that "pushes" the electrons preferentially in one direction.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 05:22:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA16900;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981203082003.00861db0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 08:20:03 -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: <"7E6xV2.0.-74.z1fPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25146
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



  Dear colleagues:

   Want to thank the near dozen vorts who examined --
and the several who criticized and commented on -- our draft manuscript.
This manuscript will remain on the web through tomorrow night
in its revision.

  If anyone else on vortex 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 title is:
   TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION 
   AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS

  Have good day.

    Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 05:23:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02072;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:22:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:22:21 -0800
Message-ID: <00c501be1ebf$47ec2e00$53441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from Deuterium
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 06:16:51 -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: <"d64E-.0.IW.C2fPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25147
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Help me out here, Robert.

I've seen where these "spallation neutrons" from Deuterium occur in Pinch
devices and Gow's
Cylindrical Magnetron experiments in the early 50's.

None of these experiments were any "hotter" than a few ev, or less, yet the
separation of the neutron from the deuteron which should require about 2.23
Mev, is occurring.

What do you think the explanation for this is?

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 07:20:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA12201;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 07:16:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 07:16:13 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:13:32 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199812031015_MC2-6258-A8B8 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"pUZyi1.0.W-2.yigPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25148
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

>> If anyone else on vortex 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. <<

Not having your email address I am unable to make the request for you
so-secret URL.  What's the big deal in suppressing the URL from Vortex-L?

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 08:52:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07993;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 08:48:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 08:48:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981203114854.00856c70 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:48:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
In-Reply-To: <199812031015_MC2-6258-A8B8 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"UAH6Z1.0.jy1.53iPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25149
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  At 10:13 AM 12/3/98 -0500, Norman Horwood wrote:

>>> If anyone else on vortex 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. <<
>
>Not having your email address I am unable to make the request for you
>so-secret URL.  What's the big deal in suppressing the URL from Vortex-L?
>
>Norman


   It was no big deal.
 
   It was not suppressed. 

   Thanks for your input.   

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 09:09:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19983;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 09:08:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 09:08:40 -0800
From: VCockeram aol.com
Message-ID: <6c548735.3666c567 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:07:51 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Report from Joseph Newman, Scottsdale, Arizona
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
Resent-Message-ID: <"4NeIS2.0.8u4.OMiPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25150
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 12/02/1998 18:23:25 Pacific Standard Time, knagel cnct.com
writes:

> But I'll estimate
>  here, say 1 microfarad ( a pretty big cap   5kV ). All caps
>  I have used tend to fail when charged passed their rating, so
>  if it survives this treatment the charge is likely not more than
>  5 kV. Now, given

I, last spring built a HV power supply (4Kv). I used two 12Mfd 5Kv caps.
Physical size about 8x3x2 inches. 
Didn't Neuman say the cap was BIG (I'm guessing he means physical size here).
So try your math on, say 50Mfd?

Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 12:40:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05836;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:37:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:37:02 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981203153819.01687100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 15:38:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <19981203070913.26351.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zjp1_1.0.5R1.iPlPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25151
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:09 PM 12/2/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>No. The speed of propagation over the concudtor equals the speed of an
>electromagnetic wave in the surrounding medium. If that is vacuum,
>then the speed is c. Maybe you are thinking of propagation along a
>coaxial cable, where the space between two conductors is typically a
>solid dielectric, in which the EM wave speed is indeed 2/3 to 3/4 c.

   Actually, the ringing you observe when pushing a square wave down a wire
is in part due to the mix of speeds in the conductor and in the surrounding
media.
But no, I wasn't talking about coax, but about real life.  The wires aren't
in vacuum and they are insulated.  The best spec's I have seen are around
.75c at 100 MHz or better.
 >More commonly, one just cools the SC. Then, bring up any kind of
>magnetic field and the SC develops eddy currents to exclude the flux.
>Thus, you have current in the SC. This is not normally very useful. In
>order to make a persistent current (one that lasts when the magnetic
>source is removed), permeate e.g. a ring of SC material with magnetic
>flux while it is still warm and a normal conductor. Cool until it
>becomes an SC. Then remove the flux source. The SC loop conserves the
>linked flux, and a current circulates around the loop as a result.

   Exactly what I said, wasn't it?  You can get eddy currents in the
surface but to get a current flowing through the bulk, you have to have the
current flowing when the materical is cooled below Tc.  (There is a
different sometimes useful trick of reducing the magnetic flux while
holding the temperature steady, but it amounts to the same thing.)

>Finally, one can wind a coil of SC material. It has two leads. Cool
>the coil. Connect the leads to a power supply and apply power. The
>current increases at the pure inductive rate, since there is no
>resistance. This is how most practical SC magnets are made. There is
>probably a set of them in a hospital near you (NMR imaging diagnostic).
 
   But if you do it that way, the current will stay on the surface, not in
the material.  Only a problem with large currents and bulk material though.
 Most current superconducting magnets are wound of wire cable AFAIK rather
than solid wire.  (The high-Tc ceramics may change this, but they haven't
yet.) 

 

                                        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 Dec  3 13:41:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20922;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <366704AD.362C earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:37:49 -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  12.3.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"F05011.0.n65.TImPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25152
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 11.25.98
  Date:  Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:13:05 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> 1. The location for recombination can change.
> 2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.
>
> These assumptions are answered by the following facts:
>
> I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
> current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
> important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
> experimental fact.
>
> I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
> cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
> the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.
>
> I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
> recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
> an experimental fact.
>
> >From these facts I conclude that:
>
> 1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.
> 2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
> purpose, is also small.
>
> Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
> can explain excess energy.

I would like to put my two cents worth into this discussion concerning
the "facts" of calorimetry.  First let me say that Ed Storms is
overextending his arguments badly by treating his "facts" as absolutes. 
The fact is that every calorimetric technique has its limits which must
be recognized. The appropriate topic for discussion is just what those
limits may be, not whether there are any limitations.  The limitations
are FACT!

I should think it is clear that the operation of an isoperibolic
calorimeter depends on a defining of the temperature differential across
a thermal impedence.  The simplest case to consider is one in which the
source volume is enclosed by two nested surfaces, each of which is
characterized by a single temperature.  That is not, however, a true
description of any of the calorimeters that have been a subject of this
discussion -- in particular NOT Ed Storms' calorimeter.

If the Storms calorimeter is to be free from systematic error, it is
essential that either: (a)heat flux exiting the source volume be
dominated by one of the various potential paths regardless of changes in
the heat source or (b) the entire internal surface be in some sort of
equilibrium such that measurement of a single temperature serves to
define the conditions at
the thermal boundary.

As Kirk has correctly, I believe, pointed out, the space at the top of
the cell containing the recombiner can hardly be expected to be in good
thermal contact with the liquid, and it is closest to the top plug that
is clearly a different thermal boundary than the water-jacketed portion
of the cell. There is no question that this represents a potential
source of error for the Storms calorimetry.  The issue is just the
magnitude of that error.

Now it may be easy to look at the plug and say it can't possibly be
significant in determining the heat flux from the cell, but let's
examine that a bit more carefully.  One of the error sources which was
documented by Miles involved the penetrations for the current and signal
leads.  Certainly the Storms calorimeter also has penetrations for those
leads.

We also know that power dissipation in the current leads may result in
systematic error.  One of the frustrations in the designing of such
devices is the close linking between electrical and thermal
conductivities of metals.  Since high electrolysis currents are said to
be essential to successful operation for these devices, it more or less
follows that the thermal conductivity of the leads may play some role in
the functioning of the calorimeter.  The trade off would be to use small
wires and let them run hot or larger wires and tolerate the heat flux.

I still don't think we have gotten to a complete discussion of the
significance of the acknowledged failures of the recombiner in the
Storms experiment.  Clearly experimental conditions are altered by
that failure.  As Storms points out, even the chemistry of the
electrolyte is changed!  Does it not follow that the thermal properties
of the electrolyte are also changed?  Does that, in turn, not have some
potential for a alteration of the calorimeter constant?

By the way, I am not satisfied with Ed Storms' use of averaging over
long time scales for his determination of the electric power input.
I simply do not understand why, many years into this debate, anyone
would do what he did.

As for the magnitude of the "excess heat" shrinking with improvements
in the calorimetry, I think a simple comparison between the size of
the effects claimed by McKubre in his early publications with what
has been mentioned most recently confirms that we are dealing with
a vanishing phenomenon.  It seems to me that much of the more recent
results are in the realm below 1 watt and some results that Ed
Storms considers significant involve 0.05 +/- 0.02 watts!  Please
don't breathe on the calorimeter during the course of a measurement.

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 12.1.98
  Date:  Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:10:28 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

Dick Blue reply to Scott Chubb

> There is an important distinction between what you have focused on and
> the physics associated with this statement.  The behavior of the r1-r2
> dependence in the wave function, which normally can be ignored in free
> space D-D collisions, except in the electromagnetic interaction, has
> also been ignored by you in your discussions.
>
> There is a second key point: the interaction is self-induced and
> associated with the close r1-r2 separation limit of the electromagnetic
> interaction. This interaction is usually "treated" as an empirically
> known, but poorly defined form of interaction.  Again, this point has
> been largely ignored by you.  And we did not emphasize it in our
> discussions with the solitary referee who provided a meaningful review
> of our paper.
>
> There is a third key point: the theory has been published in refereed
> journals other than Physical Review, and it has been favorably reviewed
> (for example by individuals from Cal Tech) who have suggested that a
> major problem with the theory seems to be not so much that there is
> anything wrong with the theory but that scientists have simply
> concluded, out-of-hat, that the theory relates to non-existent
> phenomena.  In particular, for example, it has been extremely difficult
> to obtain meaningful dialogue in many quarters with regard to theory,
> and it has been suggested that preconceived bias has played a role in
> this.

I happen to agree that theories which describe non-existant phenomena
are of little value, so the old reality test is appropriate when
selecting papers for publication.  Scott Chubb is in a difficult
position, trying to sell his ideas when there is so little experimental
evidence to confirm his notions.  Of course, there is experimental
evidence concerning this process that might have bearing on the Chubb
claims, but you may note just how carefully he has had to craft his
theory to keep from making the phenomenon observable.

> >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?
>
> Yes and no; the starting point of the theory is well-founded phenomena
> that have their most pronounced impact at lattice spacings of several
> Angstroms. But there is an important point associated with the
> underlying coherence: it relates to large transfers of momentum that are
> shared coherently over many lattice spacings.
>
> > I am not questioning the "many lattice spacings" scale of things but
rather the domain that is a tiny fraction of a lattice spacing.  You
need to focus to that smaller scale.

> This is not true, necessarily.  The governing factor is associated with
> the nature of the interaction.  Certain interactions maintain this
> coherence over large domain sizes.  The governing variables are
> associated with modes of energy release through quantum mechanical
> overlap.  In particular, for example, when "one attempts" to "excite" a
> process at a particular location in which the energy (momentum) is
> introduced at a level that is smaller than the minimimal amount that is
> necessary for the excitation to occur, the solid as a whole can absorb
> the momentum without exciting the system. The way that this is
> accomplished is non-local.
>
> The key point is that the interaction and the quantum mechanical overlap
> (not per se the degree of disorder or the length scales that are
> involved) defines whether or not the interaction is local or non-local.

I agree with you that the nature of the interaction is significant.  It
takes the long-range coulomb interaction to manifest such effects.  You
seem to not be addressing the strong interaction, however, which has
a markedly different radial dependence.  It is not long-range in the
same sense as is the coulomb potential, and, it seems to me, that must
have some significance with respect to the "self-interaction" over
distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  You keep avoiding my
questions which relate to the internal wave functions of nuclei, which,
I suggest, are dominated by this short-range, strong interaction.

> >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.
>
> As I said, the nature of the interaction dictates whether or not
> coherence can play a role.  The claim is that through self-induced
> interaction, the coherence can be important.  And it can be important
> here because energy can be minimized (and periodic order maintained)
> only through the very specific, coherent interaction that we have
> suggested.

But don't we have to consider whether the self-induced interaction
dominates the problem?  If, as I suggest, the strong interaction
potential seen by a nucleon at separation R from the origin has other
terms that are larger by orders of magnitude you will never see the
effects your theory describes. It seems to me you can't make the other
things in the lattice go away with respect to the strong interaction
potential once you extend the radius of the wave function to this larger
domain.  The fact that ordinary matter possesses nuclear stability
confirms my view.  You have to provide some explanation for having your
lattice lose its nuclear stability.

> >So what does it mean to say that the internal nuclear wave function
> >possesses Bloch symmetry relative to the lattice spacing?
>
> I did not say that all internal nuclear wave functions are Bloch
> symmetric.  I said that the r1-r2 coordinate maintains this symmetry.
> It does so because the electromagnetic wave functions, which also depend
> on this coordinate, maintain this symmetry, and if the nuclear portions
> of the wave function do not also maintain it, there would be a breakdown
> in the separability between nuclear and electromagnetic wave functions.

Once again we come to the key failing of your theory. You simply have
not addressed the heart of the problem.  You are still not able to talk
about the nuclear wave function.   You are still treating the deuteron
as the elementary particle of the system.  You can't do that!  The
elementary particles are the nucleons -- protons and neutrons -- once
you get down to any form of nuclear interaction.  You are attempting to
have some weak, second-order effect (self-potential) dominate a process
when there is obviously a much more significant interaction to be
considered.

> >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.
>
> I am also talking about interactions between deuterons.

No, you are not talking about the interaction between deuterons, except
in some unrealistically constrained manner.  If you are to describe the
interaction between deuterons at close range you must acknowledge that
the deuteron is a composite.

> >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."
>
> I repeat:  you are using a definition of internal coordinate that is
> inconsistent with what is required by the theory.  The r1-r2 dependence
> does not "only live" on the scale of the nuclear interaction.  It is
> important on all scales in the problem.

I am not the one attempting to confine the r1-r2 dependence to a
particular scale. I am just demanding that you treat the interaction in
a way that is appropriate to whatever domain your theory is to address. 
My assertion is that you do not have a 4He unless and until two
deuterons get close together, close enough to interact strongly.  You
cannot possibly describe that short-range interaction, unless you
consider the internal wave function of the deuteron, and you continue to
refuse to even acknowledge that there is such a thing.

> In normal nuclear physics, action occurs in the absence of interactions
> involving coherence for resonant interaction through periodic order.  As
> a consequence, the special importance of this variable in the strong
> interaction is ignored.  In particular, conventional nuclear physics
> treats the dependence of this variable in the electromagnetic
> interaction (where it enters explicitly) using separable argument (for
> example, Gamow theory), and only implicitly, in the strong interaction.
> In particular, in the strong interaction, this treatment fails to
> distinguish the behavior of this coordinate from the behavior of the
> remaining coordinates.
>
> In other words, you are mixing apples and oranges with respect to your
> comments about "internal" coordinates.  In particular, we have
> identified a dependence in a variable that you would ignore because it
> is not necessary to include it in situations that you are accustomed to
> dealing with.  You are then going further by asserting that we are
> claiming some dependence of all internal degrees of freedom on coherence
> through resonant interaction from periodic order.  Although such a
> dependence may occur for some forms of interaction, it is not embodied
> in the forms of interaction envisioned by us, and, in point of fact, I
> really do not believe that these forms of interaction ever apply to
> these other degrees of freedom.
>
> >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.
>
> Although thermalization may be important, you are misreading an
> important point.  You continue to equate "internal" coordinate (distance
> between nucleon and center of mass of nucleus) with the "internal
> coordinate" associated with deuteron-deuteron separation where we are
> suggesting Bloch symmetry applies.  The deuteron-deuteron separation
> variable is dominated at large scales by electromagnetic interaction and
> at small scales by nuclear interaction.  The assertion is that in
> general it is not possible (except through a very limited set of
> interactions) to maintain the difference in scale-size between the two
> forms of interaction.  Your picture simply ignores the key point.  In
> particular, to maintain the separability between the interactions, what
> evolves effectively is the following:  "you attempt to jiggle the
> nucleus, but because the electromagnetic and nuclear interactions are
> not separable," the entire solid moves (recoils)."

I am NOT the one who is confused here.  I am not equating "internal"
coordinates of the deuteron with anything relating to deuteron-deuteron
separations.  You are the one who keeps using the word "internal"
without saying internal to what.  The problem I am having with you is
that you won't talk about the internal wave function of the deuteron or
of a 4He, for example.  You are attempting to finesse the nuclear
physics, while not actually addressing the key aspects of the wave
functions.

Of course "maintaining the separability between the interactions" is
important for your theory.  But what you ignore is that the separability
is appropriate only so long as there is no strong interaction between
two deuterons.  No strong interaction means no nuclear reaction.  I
don't think you can get away from that basic fact.  You simply don't
seem to realize that the overlap between two deuterons, as you describe
them, is not a 4He nucleus.  In particular your theory cannot account
for any energy release because you are not accounting for the internal
energy of any nuclear system in the problem.

> >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.
>
> Technically, this is not true, using the definition of "pure" state that
> is commonly used in discussions of quantum entanglement.  Disregarding
> this distinction, however, all that is required is that the self-induced
> state (associated only with the D+ in ion band states) occupants
> coherently occupy spin states and that their self-induced potential
> energy be periodic for a finite period of time.  The amount of time that
> is required is system dependent.
>
> >However, there is nothing about the PdD lattice that gives
> >much to define a prefered spin orientation.
>
> For the self-induced state, crytalline boundaries can (and probably do)
> accomplish this.

I agree this may be possible, but it is not a sure thing.  As you say
this is all very system dependent, and you have done nothing to show
that you have selected a system that will do what is required.

> >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 deuterons is, off the top of my head, a few megahertz.
>
> I have suggested in the past that attempting to measure the magnetic
> moments of D+ in ion band states using NMR, it may be possible to
> trigger Cold Fusion reactions.

Well, until someone does an experiment, we don't really have much to
talk about do we?  I would say that your theory should be tested in some
domain other than cold fusion calorimetry.  Measurement  of excess heat
is far too crude an experiment to provide any answers regarding the
kinds of questions you raise.  You just stumbled into the wrong camp
when you allied yourself with the cold fusion crowd.  It naturally
follows that your theory is treated with less respect, because of the
company you keep.
>
> As I said, it is necessary to induce the coherence only in the band
> state portion of the D+ population.  To occupy this state requires
> special preparation.  It may in fact be useful to use magnetic fields to
> obtain this condition.

But hasn't this idea been tested experimentally?  As I recall no one
found that a magnetic field makes any difference.  In that sense your
theory has failed a test.

> >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.
>
> It is nice to see that you are paying attention to timescale.  This I
> believe is key, and it is very true that the lifetime of the
> self-induced state and its potential are key variables in this.  A
> second, probably critical variable is the chemical potential of the
> underlying solid.  This is because the chemical potential sets the zero
> of energy of the band state.  And although you assert we have had
> nothing to say about this, in point of fact, it touches on the starting
> point of theory.  Specifically, the theory makes use of important
> philosophical statement: without disrupting the environment, it is never
> possible to determine how many D+'s are within the solid and how many
> occupy ion band states.  But nature does not care about this.  It treats
> the environment in a well-prescribed way, based on quantum mechanics,
> regardless of what we say.  Mathematically, we can implement these
> philosophical statements by using the idea of a chemical potential and
> the concept of averaging.

Oh, I have been paying attention to time scales right from the
beginning. So far, I see nuclear processes (of the ordinary sort)
winning any foot race you care to stage.  The concept of averaging (and
its significance) is strongly dependent on time scales.  Simple fact is
that a nuclear reaction can be over and done before an atom can twitch. 
Averaging over the atomic state isn't likely to make a big difference
regardless of your "philosophy".  Likewise for the chemical potential. 
You are barking up the wrong tree.

> >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.
>
> Right on!  And see my comments about chemical potential;  also, note
> that the electrostatic zero (defined by the energy required to move a
> point charge from the surface of the solid to infinity) is also involved
> in this.

Note also the energy zero for the nuclear states is involved in this.
Guess which one dominates in a nuclear reaction process?  Nobody much
cares about the chemical potential when describing a nuclear reaction.

 > >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.
>
> Not exactly--I said maintaining Born-Oppenheimer separability, Bloch
> symmetry, and eliminating latent heat are required for this to be the
> case; and this is the reason there are no neutrons emitted.  It also is
> the reason ground state - ground state interactions are involved.  (For
> this reason, the 4He actually is not in an excited state at all.)
>
> >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?
>
> Good questions!  Overlap between initial and final states requires
> Born-Oppenheimer separability and maintenance of periodic order along
> the lines I have suggested.  (This is a long time limit of the theory.)
> However, if periodic order is suddenly disrupted, it may be possible for
> alternative, competing timescales to become involved.

Maybe it would help clarify things if you would actually state what
time scales you are considering here.  What could be more disruptive
to your assumed periodic order than having two deuterons fuse?  As
I suggested the Born-Oppenheimer separability goes out the window
as soon as two deuterons interact strongly.  So you seem to be admitting
that you can't maintain the conditions your theory demands while
allowing such a thing to happen, i.e. you have a "no fusion" theory.

> >I see those as some good reasons to question Scott Chubb's assumption
> >of Bloch symmetry with respect to nuclear coordinates.
>
> See above--Also, I'd like to say that I thought especially these last
> comments to be well-thought out and interesting.

Well, it seems you effort to keep cold fusion from taking on some of the
characteristics of ordinary fusion has failed.  You have to chose
between a preservation of order in a lattice of deuterons which do not
interact strongly or disruption of assumed order because the deuterons
do interact. If the interaction involves potentials that are much
stronger than those responsible for maintaining lattice symmetry,it
seems unreasonable to assume that those very weak terms will dictate how
the reaction process will proceed.

Dick Blue>

> SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 13:50:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00513;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:48:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:48:41 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981203165002.00d2a690 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 16:50:02 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from
  Deuterium
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <00c501be1ebf$47ec2e00$53441d26 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"H-GiO2.0.x7.uSmPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25153
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:16 AM 12/3/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>Help me out here, Robert.
>
>I've seen where these "spallation neutrons" from Deuterium occur in Pinch
>devices and Gow's
>Cylindrical Magnetron experiments in the early 50's.
>
>None of these experiments were any "hotter" than a few ev, or less, yet the
>separation of the neutron from the deuteron which should require about 2.23
>Mev, is occurring.
>
>What do you think the explanation for this is?
 
   1) It does happen, and if you don't know to expect it, it is very
surprising.

   2) The usual model is that "ballistic" electrons, protons, or deuterons
escape collision for a few nanoseconds and get accelerated to high energies
by the fields in the pinch.  The problem with this model is that you have
to make very extreme assumptions to get the particles up to speed, then
involved in a collision, in such a small space.

   3) There is another bigger problem.  Even if you swallow all of 2), you
have to come up with a source for all that energy.  One possible source is
from dd fusion. However, if the only neutron source is "self-targeting"  d
+ d --> He3 + n, you should be able to find the enough He3.  For some
targets this works, for others, you wind up short Helium.

   4) So, the accepted model for those cases is that what happens is:

     A deuteron is travelling at several eV to the KeV range near a
(relatively) massive nucleus.  Let's choose sodium as an example.  The Na23
absorbs a proton from the deuteron and becomes Mg24 with enough energy left
over to send the neutron away at high velocity.  (It is a nice theory,
however...)

     I prefer the model where the neutron hanging out on a long string from
the proton in deuterium is absorbed by the nucleus then drags the proton in
with it (Na23 + d --> Mg25*  This state is not only unstable, it is not
directly observable vis Heisenberg.  The excited state then kicks out a
neutron carrying most of the reaction energy.  There is no way to see a
difference between these two models, but this helps understand why the X,d
--> Y,n cross-sections are so high. 

       However you explain it, throwing deuterons with energies in the tens
of keV at targets results in showers of neutrons from just about any
target.  With some targets, the only neutron source is self targeting, with
others stripping reactions are assumed.

                                        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 Dec  3 13:52:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01232;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:49:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:49:56 -0800
Message-ID: <3667079B.42B1 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:50:19 -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: Forsley: unique properties of Pd nucleus  12.3.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Klp2F1.0.0J.3UmPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25154
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Chubb: Storms: Shanahan: CF debates 11.25.98
  Date:  Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:14:40 EST
  From:  LPGForsley aol.com
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

It occurs to me that the Pd nucleus asymmetry, I believe it has a spin
of 7/2, coupled with a mechanism (unknown) to polarize that spin, would
be significant. Pd also has some electronic shell variance that is
unique and peculiar.  I see no way to couple these, nor, am I aware of
any magnetic field in most experiments. On the otherhand, if one has a
current of deuterons, then one has an associated magnetic field, but I
would think too small to flip nuclear spins in Pd. Again, we
are possibly looking for some type of coherence phenomena to explain
global effects of local physics.  Larry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 14:18:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA16253;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:16:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:16:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981203171756.0168bb30 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 17:17:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from
  Deuterium
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <00c501be1ebf$47ec2e00$53441d26 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ep99e.0.sz3.LtmPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25155
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:16 AM 12/3/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>None of these experiments were any "hotter" than a few ev, or less, yet the
>separation of the neutron from the deuteron which should require about 2.23
>Mev, is occurring.
 
   One detail I forgot to explain is that if there is a pinch instability,
you will often see particles accelerated to the one to ten kilovolt range.
As I said in the previous post, beyond that the acceleration distances are
too big for human scale devices.  Galaxy scale black hole devices seem to
produce cosmic rays this way.

                                        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 Dec  3 14:42:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27878;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003201be1f0c$e121a620$2a441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from Deuterium
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:32:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jnkf-1.0.Wp6.mBnPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25156
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks Robert, a very lucid explanation.

Regards,   Frederick

Robert I. Eachus wrote:


>At 06:16 AM 12/3/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>None of these experiments were any "hotter" than a few ev, or less, yet
the
>>separation of the neutron from the deuteron which should require about
2.23
>>Mev, is occurring.
>
>   One detail I forgot to explain is that if there is a pinch instability,
>you will often see particles accelerated to the one to ten kilovolt range.
>As I said in the previous post, beyond that the acceleration distances are
>too big for human scale devices.  Galaxy scale black hole devices seem to
>produce cosmic rays this way.
>
>                                        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 Dec  3 16:13:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA25416;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:12:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:12:19 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:04:13 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981203153819.01687100 spectre.mitre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981203185534.26372A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q2L6U1.0.2D6.ZZoPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25157
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Rob't and Vo.,  

	Comment and questions...


On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> .75c at 100 MHz or better. > >More commonly, one just cools the SC.
Then, bring up any kind of > >magnetic field and the SC develops eddy
currents to exclude the flux. 

	What  type of eddy current?
	
	What mechanism ?  Are we talking Type I or Type II SC?

> >Thus, you have current in the SC. This is not normally very useful. In
> >order to make a persistent current (one that lasts when the magnetic
> >source is removed), permeate e.g. a ring of SC material with magnetic
> >flux while it is still warm and a normal conductor. Cool until it
> >becomes an SC. Then remove the flux source. The SC loop conserves the
> >linked flux, and a current circulates around the loop as a result.
> 
	My understanding is that this is needlessly complicated...  One 
can induce super current by induction or direct electrical connection.


>    Exactly what I said, wasn't it?  You can get eddy currents in the
> surface but to get a current flowing through the bulk, you have to have the
> current flowing when the materical is cooled below Tc.
-----------------------------------------


	Q:  How does this work?

  (There is a
> different sometimes useful trick of reducing the magnetic flux while
> holding the temperature steady, but it amounts to the same thing.)
> ------------------------------------------------------

> >Finally, one can wind a coil of SC material. It has two leads. Cool
> >the coil. Connect the leads to a power supply and apply power. The
> >current increases at the pure inductive rate, since there is no
> >resistance. This is how most practical SC magnets are made. There is
> >probably a set of them in a hospital near you (NMR imaging diagnostic).
>  


++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

	Why do you sat this?
	Is this Type I or Type II you describe?


>    But if you do it that way, the current will stay on the surface, not in
> the material.  Only a problem with large currents and bulk material though.
>  Most current superconducting magnets are wound of wire cable AFAIK rather
> than solid wire.  (The high-Tc ceramics may change this, but they haven't
> yet.) 

	Solid wire and tapes are used, as well as composite wires, tapes 
and bars.

	At low frequencies... ie., ~ 20 cps.... the bulk of the conductor 
acts...  the 'skin effect' occurs at high frequencies and is, to a 
degree, material and structure dependent.

> 
>  
> 
>                                         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 Dec  3 16:27:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30494;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:22:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:22:09 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:13:21 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, free E <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Low frequency stuff
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981203190955.26372C-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"EAbad1.0.FS7.mioPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25158
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Long Wave Club of America

	Bill Oliver
	45 Wildflower Road
	Levittown PA
	19057

	members.aol.com/lwcanews/


	2 meg cps and DOWN!!!!!

					JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 17:55:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA16834;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19981204015118.19198.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:51:18 -0800 (PST)
From: ron kita <tekcorman yahoo.com>
Subject: Electromagnetic UFO Signature
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"ISRlz2.0.y64.r-pPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25159
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Many may not be enthusiastic for another UFO post,
however, in the book UFOLOGY by McCampbell on
(circa) page 108 is the details of an electromagnetic
signature of an UFO over Meridian Mississippi...details
were captured by a "special" B-57 Hustler bomber
with equipment similar to current AWAC planes.
Given are very detailed frequency and sweep rates..
If some one has a copy they may want to post the
specifics.  I haven t seen my copy of the book for 
years.
Cheers,
Ron Kita
UFOs aren t real....but their signatures are!
BTW: the details of the hz were presented at an 
AAAS meeting in Boston...citation is in the book..
perhaps someone has a copy of the AAAS paper.



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 18:55:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28119;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:52:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:52:58 -0800
Message-ID: <005601be1f30$8687f1a0$2a441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic UFO Signature
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:48:03 -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: <"zpS0R.0.Ht6.AwqPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25160
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: ron kita <tekcorman yahoo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 6:51 PM
Subject: Electromagnetic UFO Signature

The "Hustler" was a B- 58, Ron.   :-) 

A sharp aircraft too!

Regards,  Frederick


>Many may not be enthusiastic for another UFO post,
>however, in the book UFOLOGY by McCampbell on
>(circa) page 108 is the details of an electromagnetic
>signature of an UFO over Meridian Mississippi...details
>were captured by a "special" B-57 Hustler bomber
>with equipment similar to current AWAC planes.
>Given are very detailed frequency and sweep rates..
>If some one has a copy they may want to post the
>specifics.  I haven t seen my copy of the book for 
>years.
>Cheers,
>Ron Kita
>UFOs aren t real....but their signatures are!
>BTW: the details of the hz were presented at an 
>AAAS meeting in Boston...citation is in the book..
>perhaps someone has a copy of the AAAS paper.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 19:58:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11024;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:56:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:56:27 -0800
Message-ID: <19981204033435.4292.rocketmail send101.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:34:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Final Analysis: Power Gen Mystery Solved
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"nCQB-.0.9i2.grrPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25161
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

Please send me the url.

					Thanks.

>   If anyone else on vortex 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 title is:
>    TIME COURSE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION 
>    AND ITS RELEVANCE TO FLOW CALORIMETERS
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 20:18:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA22373;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:16:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:16:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981203231554.00c39c50 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:24:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Report from Joseph Newman, Scottsdale, Arizona
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5-VVT3.0.RT5.r8sPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25162
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:07 PM 12/3/98 EST, you wrote:
>I, last spring built a HV power supply (4Kv). I used two 12Mfd 5Kv caps.
>Physical size about 8x3x2 inches. 
>Didn't Neuman say the cap was BIG (I'm guessing he means physical size here).
>So try your math on, say 50Mfd?

Well, on the other hand, I have a 50microfarad 4kv cap here
that weighs in excess of 50lbs, it's about the size of two
attache cases stuck flat faced.

The point is, I don't know. Without data, statements about
efficiency are pretty meaningless, yes? It would be nice if
Mr. Soule would post such data; I'm still waiting...

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 20:24:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26177;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:23:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:23:19 -0800
Message-ID: <19981204042317.22419.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:23:17 -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: <"YfB_t2.0.tO6.tEsPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25164
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> Actually, the ringing you observe when pushing a square wave down a
wire is in part due to the mix of speeds in the conductor and in the
surrounding media.

   Such ringing is usually due to impedance mismatch. The mix of
speeds, called dispersion, is small in ordinary metal + insulator wires.


> But no, I wasn't talking about coax, but about real life.  The wires
aren't in vacuum and they are insulated.  The best spec's I have seen
are around .75c at 100 MHz or better.

   Bare wires in air will propagate EM at very nearly c. Yes, solid
dielectric reduces propagation speed.


>    Exactly what I said, wasn't it?  You can get eddy currents in the
surface but to get a current flowing through the bulk, you have to
have the current flowing when the materical is cooled below Tc.  

   No, normally you have no current flowing through the loop while it
is still a normal conductor. The current appears upon removing the
external flux source AFTER the ring has cooled below Tc and gone
superconducting.


>    But if you do it that way, the current will stay on the surface,
not in
 the material.  Only a problem with large currents and bulk material
though.
 Most current superconducting magnets are wound of wire cable AFAIK
rather
 than solid wire.

   Here we have to distinguish between type 1 and type 2
superconductors. Type 1 conduct current in a very thin skin layer,
never in bulk. They are limited to low magnetic field strengths. Type
2 conduct throughout the bulk. They are used to make practical
magnets, etc. I was talking about coils wound with type 2 material.


==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 20:24:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA28832;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981203231555.00c3b6d0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:23:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bEPBP2.0.Q27.-CsPs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25163
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 03:38 PM 12/3/98 -0500, you wrote:
>   Actually, the ringing you observe when pushing a square wave down a wire
>is in part due to the mix of speeds in the conductor and in the surrounding
>media.
>But no, I wasn't talking about coax, but about real life.  The wires aren't
>in vacuum and they are insulated.  The best spec's I have seen are around
>.75c at 100 MHz or better.
>                                        Robert I. Eachus
>

Hi.

I can say, from first hand experimentation, that a single wire
bare copper transmission line will propagate pulses at speeds
very close to C in vacuum. Insulating the wire does not effect this
much, unless the dielectric fills the space to the ground return
you'll still see close to see. Risetimes of pulses used for
these experiments were generally smaller than 1 nsec. 

Not sure what you're referring to with the .75c, this really
sounds like a coax spec (typically .7c).

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 20:35:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA31711;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:33:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:33:53 -0800
Message-ID: <19981204043549.11962.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:35:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from  Deuterium
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"sQm_9.0.Pl7.nOsPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25165
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Eachus wrote:
>    4) So, the accepted model for those cases is that what happens is:
A deuteron is travelling at several eV to the KeV range near a
(relatively) massive nucleus.  Let's choose sodium as an example.  The
Na23
absorbs a proton from the deuteron and becomes Mg24 with enough energy
left
over to send the neutron away at high velocity.
>
>      I prefer the model where the neutron hanging out on a long
string from the proton in deuterium is absorbed by the nucleus then
drags the proton in with it (Na23 + d --> Mg25*  This state is not
only unstable, it is not directly observable vis Heisenberg.  The
excited state then kicks out a neutron carrying most of the reaction
energy.  There is no way to see a difference between these two models,
but this helps understand why the X,d
> --> Y,n cross-sections are so high. 

   I think you can see the difference, at least if (3) above occurs
"on the fly" as the two nuclei pass each other. If a compound nucleus
is formed, as in (4), and if it is spinning, then when it decays after
a random decay time the products fly off at a (nearly) random angle.
But if the reaction occurs on the fly, the exit angles of the products
are strictly constrained. The difference could be seen in a cloud
chamber or other multidimensional detector.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 20:50:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA06987;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:49:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:49:15 -0800
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:41:18 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic UFO Signature
In-Reply-To: <19981204015118.19198.rocketmail send104.yahoomail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981203233322.9288A-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Zw-r3.0.5j1.AdsPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25166
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	If anyone has any info on signatures, please let us all know... I 
mean 'hardball' figures.

	I have run across several designs of so called 'UFO detectors'

	Some are magnetic, some EM.  Of clever types;


	a] 60 cps field sensor ... 'looks' at power lines, the theory 
being the UFOs are found, sometimes, near power lines, and interfere, or 
can interfere with same.  The sensor has antenna, a span is set, and then 
if there is change.... YDTC [you draw the conclusion]

	b] magnetic seismological sensor ... uses repelling magnetes, 
instead of 'proof mass' of conventional accelerometer seismo.

	YDTC

	c] geophone wideband enough to 'hear' out to 500 cps

	YDTC

				JHS
	I personally like the idea of trying to observe several 
properties at the same time, ie., maybe E, EM, mag and geo... and geo mag 
... plus maybe the powe line thing...

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 22:28:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA05120;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:26:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:26:51 -0800
Message-ID: <366780B9.3E98 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:27:05 -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: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  12.3.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BLCRr1.0.wF1.g2uPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25167
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 12.3.98
      Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 18:38:34 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

>I happen to agree that theories which describe non-existant phenomena
>are of little value, so the old reality test is appropriate when
>selecting papers for publication.  

There is a more serious problem that I did not emphasize in my comment
concerning the review, which was favorable, that ellicited this comment
by you.  The reviewer suggested that the problem with the existing bias
does not seem to be the result of a lack of experimental information,
indicating the phenomena is non-existent, but that the bias seems to be
the result of potential reviewers being unaware of the existing
information.  In particular, the reviewer suggested that there has been
a serious breakdown in the scientific process, with regard to Cold
Fusion, and that this, as opposed to the phenomena being existent or
non-existent, is responsible for the bias.

>Scott Chubb is in a difficult position, trying to sell his ideas when
there is so little experimental
>evidence to confirm his notions.  

Believe it or not, predictions of the high-loading requirement, the
release of untrapped 4He in surface regions and outside the lattice, the
lack of high energy particles and neutrons, that cracks disrupt Cold
Fusion, and other phenomena were all made prior to their being
observed.  The ideas were "not sold".  They existed.

>Of course, there is experimental
>evidence concerning this process that might have bearing on the Chubb
>claims, but you may note just how carefully he has had to craft his
>theory to keep from making the phenomenon observable.

The theory preceded the experimental observations cited above.  The
theory has made additional predictions that can be tested.  These
include a number of triggering phenomena, optimal crystal sizes, etc. 
Since the goal of theory is to guide experiment, and experiment has
matched theory, it can actually be said that the theory preceded the
observation of the phenomena and provides a guideline for what should be
expected.

>I agree with you that the nature of the interaction is significant.  It
>takes the long-range coulomb interaction to manifest such effects.  You
>seem to not be addressing the strong interaction, however, which has
>a markedly different radial dependence.  It is not long-range in the
>same sense as is the coulomb potential, and, it seems to me, that must
>have some significance with respect to the "self-interaction" over
>distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  You keep avoiding my
>questions which relate to the internal wave functions of nuclei, which,
>I suggest, are dominated by this short-range, strong interaction.

I see from this comment and the following comments that there is a
fundamental point of confusion that still exists.  We are treating the
strong interaction as it is normally treated, in every respect, except
one:  we are not assuming that in the final state 4He nucleus, in the
strong interaction, the dependence of the nuclear wave function on the
"deuteron-deuteron" separation can be treated as being independent of
the electromagnetic interaction.  We are assuming that in this variable
(and in this variable alone), it is necessary to impose Bloch symmetry
on the associated wave function.  The reason for this is that in the
associated electromagnetic interaction (as a consequence of resonant
coherence from periodic order), large transfers of momentum can occur
locally that "penetrate" the "normal" length scales associated with the
strong interaction.

I have cited reasons (rules), based on the requirements of
Born-Oppenheimer separability and the need to eliminate latent heat,
that are responsiblefor imposing this symmetry on the nuclear portion of
the wave function.  I see by your comments that my last set of comments
have not been understood with regard to this point.

Let's be specific.  There are four nucleons at r1, r2, r3, and r4 in the
4He final state and a lattice.  The center of mass rcm of the 4He to an
excellent approximation is rcm=.25*(r1+r2+r3+r4).  The wave function
associated with this dependence is described by an electromagnetic, ion
band state.  (This takes account of part of the dependence on the
lattice, but only part of it.)  There are still four nucleons, each of
which has a position, at any one of Ncell locations, defined by its
distance from rcm, modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  Let's put a proton
at r1, a neutron at r2, a second proton at r3, and second neutron at
r4.  The claim is that the dependence of the strong interaction on the
difference between the centers of mass of proton-neutron pairs (for
example, pn12-pn34=(r1+r2-r3-r4)*.5, and pn14-pn32.5*(r1+r4-r3-r2)) can
not be treated as being separable from the electromagnetic interaction. 
This is because large amounts of momentum can be imparted locally as a
result resonant coherence resulting from periodic order.  

In fact, it is only necessary (and in fact required) to include the
Bloch symmetry in the dependence in one of the two differences
(pn12-pn32 or pn14-pn32).  But it is necessary to include this
dependence in order to account for the fact that as a result of resonant
coherent interaction from periodic order, the electromagnetic and strong
interactions can become coupled (because the electromagnetic interaction
can impart huge amounts of momentum locally) in a non-separable way.

This dependence simply is not included in conventional nuclear physics. 
In the model we are proposing, it is.  In practice, there is a simply
way of handling this; it involves quite literally saying that the
reaction (i.e., the change in the zero of kinetic energy) is distributed
coherently throughout the solid, while computing the "effective strong
force" interaction, using conventional nuclear physics, and coupling the
energy to the lattice by shifting the zero of kinetic energy of the
lattice relative to its boundary.  The reason this prescription works
and is unique is because it maintains the Born-Oppenheimer separability
of the wave functions and the separability of the nuclear and
electromagnetic interactions.

I am going to skip many of the comments you have made that seem to
relate to the confusion associated with this point.
  

>I am NOT the one who is confused here.  I am not equating "internal"
>coordinates of the deuteron with anything relating to deuteron-deuteron
>separations.  You are the one who keeps using the word "internal"
>without saying internal to what.  The problem I am having with you is
>that you won't talk about the internal wave function of the deuteron or
>of a 4He, for example.  You are attempting to finesse the nuclear
>physics, while not actually addressing the key aspects of the wave
>functions.

I hope my last set of comments answers this.

>Of course "maintaining the separability between the interactions" is
>important for your theory.  But what you ignore is that the separability
>is appropriate only so long as there is no strong interaction between
>two deuterons.  No strong interaction means no nuclear reaction.

Again, see comments above; note where I am saying that the separability
breaks down and where it does not and why.  Note also that in
conventional nuclear physics it is always assumed that electromagnetic
and strong interactions are separable.  This is because of the very
different time and length scales that are involved.

>> I have suggested in the past that attempting to measure the magnetic
>> moments of D+ in ion band states using NMR, it may be possible to
>> trigger Cold Fusion reactions.
>
>Well, until someone does an experiment, we don't really have much to
>talk about do we?  I would say that your theory should be tested in some
>domain other than cold fusion calorimetry.  

It was suggested (I believe by Bockris?) at ICCF4 that magnetism of this
sort can enhance Cold Fusion.  I have heard privately that others have
also found this to be the case.  But I have seen nothing published about
this.

>Measurement  of excess heat
>is far too crude an experiment to provide any answers regarding the
>kinds of questions you raise.  You just stumbled into the wrong camp
>when you allied yourself with the cold fusion crowd.  

Phrases like "stumbled into the wrong camp when you allied yourself"
don't really serve a useful purpose.  Why not leave off the entire last
sentence of this comment?

>It naturally
>follows that your theory is treated with less respect, because of the
>company you keep.

I think it is appropriate to recognize that it is clear that the
scientific process has broken down with regard to Cold Fusion. 
References to different "camps" and "the company [I] keep" seem to
reflect this fact.  It is too bad that this has occurred.

>> As I said, it is necessary to induce the coherence only in the band
>> state portion of the D+ population.  To occupy this state requires
>> special preparation.  It may in fact be useful to use magnetic fields to
>> obtain this condition.
>
>But hasn't this idea been tested experimentally?  As I recall no one
>found that a magnetic field makes any difference.  

See comments from above--

>In that sense your theory has failed a test.

In fact, it hasn't.


>Oh, I have been paying attention to time scales right from the
>beginning. So far, I see nuclear processes (of the ordinary sort)
>winning any foot race you care to stage.  The concept of averaging (and
>its significance) is strongly dependent on time scales.  Simple fact is
>that a nuclear reaction can be over and done before an atom can twitch. 
>Averaging over the atomic state isn't likely to make a big difference
>regardless of your "philosophy".  Likewise for the chemical potential. 
>You are barking up the wrong tree.

Quantum mechanics does pay attention to coherence and periodic order.
Quantum mechanically, it is impossible to say how many D's are in the
solid, in band states, and interacting through a distributed nuclear
reaction, resulting from resonant coherent interaction due to periodic
order.

>Maybe it would help clarify things if you would actually state what
>time scales you are considering here.  What could be more disruptive
>to your assumed periodic order than having two deuterons fuse?  As
>I suggested the Born-Oppenheimer separability goes out the window
>as soon as two deuterons interact strongly.  

I hope that the comments above about when and where separability holds
have sufficiently clarified this point.

>Well, it seems you effort to keep cold fusion from taking on some of the
>characteristics of ordinary fusion has failed.  You have to chose
>between a preservation of order in a lattice of deuterons which do not
>interact strongly or disruption of assumed order because the deuterons
>do interact. 

The deuterons do interact strongly.  And they can do it without
disrupting periodic order.  This is the important point. 

>If the interaction involves potentials that are much
>stronger than those responsible for maintaining lattice symmetry,it
>seems unreasonable to assume that those very weak terms will dictate how
>the reaction process will proceed.

I am saying that the potentials must be treated as being of comparable
scale (as a consequence of coherence).  But this not only can be
accomplished, it is necessary for this to be the case under certain
circumstances.  In particular, to minimize energy, while maintaining
periodic order, this will occur.

>Dick Blue>
>
SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec  3 22:42:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA12697;
	Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:40:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:40:10 -0800
Message-ID: <366783D7.6D65 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:40:23 -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  12.3.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RByIf1.0.F63.9FuPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25168
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 12.3.98
       Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:04:28 +0000
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
 
Reply to Dick Blue by Ed Storms
 
> Subject: Re: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.25.98
>   Date:  Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:13:05 -0500 (EST)
>   From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Ed Storms wrote
> 
> > 1. The location for recombination can change.
> > 2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.
> >
> > These assumptions are answered by the following facts:
> >
> > I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
> > current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
> > important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
> > experimental fact.
> >
> > I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
> > cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
> > the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.
> >
> > I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
> > recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This 
> > is an experimental fact.
> >
> > From these facts I conclude that:
> >
> > 1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.
> > 2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
> > purpose, is also small.
> >
> > Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
> > can explain excess energy.

Dick Blue wrote
> 
> I would like to put my two cents worth into this discussion concerning
> the "facts" of calorimetry.  First let me say that Ed Storms is
> overextending his arguments badly by treating his "facts" as absolutes.
> The fact is that every calorimetric technique has its limits which must
> be recognized. The appropriate topic for discussion is just what those
> limits may be, not whether there are any limitations.  The limitations
> are FACT!

Yes, it is fact that all calorimeters, indeed all experiments, have
limitations. In spite of this fact, science moves on and achieves
general agreement about nature. This is done by a process of evaluation
and agreement about what can be believed and what is still open to
interpretation.  I am trying to isolate observations which are real and
true from those whose interpretation can be debated.  Unless this
separation is made, we will never arrive at a conclusion to this
discussion.  I would appreciate Dick’s help in this effort.
 
> I should think it is clear that the operation of an isoperibolic
> calorimeter depends on a defining of the temperature differential across
> a thermal impedence.  The simplest case to consider is one in which the
> source volume is enclosed by two nested surfaces, each of which is
> characterized by a single temperature.  That is not, however, a true
> description of any of the calorimeters that have been a subject of this
> discussion -- in particular NOT Ed Storms' calorimeter.

I have never said my calorimeter was ideal in this regard, and Dick’s
statement has no bearing on the issue.

> If the Storms calorimeter is to be free from systematic error, it is
> essential that either: (a)heat flux exiting the source volume be
> dominated by one of the various potential paths regardless of changes in
> the heat source or (b) the entire internal surface be in some sort of
> equilibrium such that measurement of a single temperature serves to
> define the conditions at the thermal boundary.

Yes, in an ideal world this statement is true.  In the real world, a
compromise is made which is demonstrated by experiment to have little
effect on the results. This has been does in my case as I described in a
previous posting.
 
> As Kirk has correctly, I believe, pointed out, the space at the top of
> the cell containing the recombiner can hardly be expected to be in good
> thermal contact with the liquid, and it is closest to the top plug that
> is clearly a different thermal boundary than the water-jacketed portion
> of the cell. There is no question that this represents a potential
> source of error for the Storms calorimetry.  The issue is just the
> magnitude of that error.

Yes, the issue is magnitude. 

> Now it may be easy to look at the plug and say it can't possibly be
> significant in determining the heat flux from the cell, but let's
> examine that a bit more carefully.  One of the error sources which was
> documented by Miles involved the penetrations for the current and signal
> leads.  Certainly the Storms calorimeter also has penetrations for those
> leads.

Yes, the leads penetrate the top.

> We also know that power dissipation in the current leads may result in
> systematic error.  One of the frustrations in the designing of such
> devices is the close linking between electrical and thermal
> conductivities of metals.  Since high electrolysis currents are said to
> be essential to successful operation for these devices, it more or less
> follows that the thermal conductivity of the leads may play some role in
> the functioning of the calorimeter.  The trade off would be to use small
> wires and let them run hot or larger wires and tolerate the heat flux.

Yes, heat can leak out of the top. The question is whether a change in
this leak rate will result in several watts being added to the cell. In
most cases, and certainly in mine, room temperature is nearly equal to
the interior temperature.  Therefore, regardless of a potential for heat
conduction, the required amount of heat can not flow.

> I still don't think we have gotten to a complete discussion of the
> significance of the acknowledged failures of the recombiner in the
> Storms experiment.  Clearly experimental conditions are altered by
> that failure.  As Storms points out, even the chemistry of the
> electrolyte is changed!  Does it not follow that the thermal properties
> of the electrolyte are also changed?  Does that, in turn, not have some
> potential for a alteration of the calorimeter constant?

No, changes in the physical properties of the liquid are insignificant
and, in any case, would not alter the properties of the wall which
mainly determine the calibration constant.  Remember, this is a stirred
cell. 

> By the way, I am not satisfied with Ed Storms' use of averaging over
> long time scales for his determination of the electric power input.
> I simply do not understand why, many years into this debate, anyone
> would do what he did.

Because the error is only in Dick’s mind.  No evidence exists, in spite
of looking, for this error in the real world. To be more exact, although
an error can be introduced by noise, the magnitude is too small to be an
explanation for excess power. If Dick insists on this being the
explanation in spite of evidence to the contrary, I suggest he show his
evidence for such an effect based on an actual observation, not on his
supposition. 

> As for the magnitude of the "excess heat" shrinking with improvements
> in the calorimetry, I think a simple comparison between the size of
> the effects claimed by McKubre in his early publications with what
> has been mentioned most recently confirms that we are dealing with
> a vanishing phenomenon.  

I suggest Dick demonstrate the basis for this myth using hard facts
rather than spreading a falsehood based on what he thinks.  

>It seems to me that much of the more recent
> results are in the realm below 1 watt and some results that Ed
> Storms considers significant involve 0.05 +/- 0.02 watts!  Please
> don't breathe on the calorimeter during the course of a measurement.

If the absurdum Dick states above were the only evidence, he would have
a point. I’m trying to understand a general phenomenon from a broad
range of evidence. It is pointless and trivial to use one value as a
basis for rejecting everything else.

I’m getting tired of dancing around the same issues.  I realize Dick
needs to find some error to explain the claims.  Otherwise, he would
have to agree that some of the amazing claims are real.  However, if
this discussion is to advance, Dick needs to come up with some new and,
hopefully, original suggestions.  Simply stating over and over again
that an error is real, when my statement of the evidence shows
otherwise, is a waste of time.  If Dick does not believe my
interpretation, then he needs to show where the error actually lies
using experimental information.  And please, don’t hit me with the
homely that it is the responsibility of people making the claims to show
the evidence. It is also a responsibility of people challenging the
claims to be objective and factual.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 00:56:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA07611;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:56:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:56:04 -0800
Message-ID: <00dc01be1f63$41eb0fe0$2a441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Robert I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear" Neutrons from Deuterium
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:50:28 -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: <"MkP-s1.0.qs1.aEwPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25169
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gosh, Robert and Michael, you don't suppose that the low temperature plasma
"instabilities" are setting up dE/dt Fields that cause the Deuteron to Spin
"end-over-end" like a Bola and it flys apart due to the mv^2/R force, do
you?

Will you do the maths?   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 02:42:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA25721;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 02:41:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 02:41:53 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981204104900.01136224 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, 04 Dec 1998 05:49:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"qXrNo2.0.pH6.nnxPs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25170
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 02:00 PM 11/30/98 -0600, you wrote:

>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".


Joseph Cater says that the principal of electron source can be demonstrated.
He says that the performance of a transformer can be greatly impaired by
completely shielding the secondary with a good conductor of electricity such
as copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow of particles to the
secondary.


Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 09:07:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19460;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:00:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:00:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3668155F.2E6D earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:01:19 -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: Little: Storms: Blue: CF debate  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_lY-e1.0.zl4.yK1Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25171
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 12.3.98
  Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 09:28:53 -0600
  From:  Scott Little <little eden.com>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

At 23:40 12/3/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Subject:  Re: Blue: Storms: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory 12.3.98
>       Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:04:28 +0000
>       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>

>I’m getting tired of dancing around the same issues.  I realize Dick
>needs to find some error to explain the claims.  Otherwise, he would
>have to agree that some of the amazing claims are real.  However, if
>this discussion is to advance, Dick needs to come up with some new and,
>hopefully, original suggestions.  Simply stating over and over again
>that an error is real, when my statement of the evidence shows
>otherwise, is a waste of time.  If Dick does not believe my
>interpretation, then he needs to show where the error actually lies
>using experimental information.

I'm not surprised to see this kind of stalemate emerge in this
discussion.
Either Ed is right...cold fusion exists...or Dick is right...cold fusion
does not exist.  No amount of arguing over old experimental results is
going to settle the matter.  Yes, some of the old results APPEAR to be
compelling.  No, I can't identify any errors in them...but that does NOT
mean that they are error free.  In my experience, calorimetry excels
above all other metrologies at providing a fertile medium for the
spawning and nuturing of subtle systematic errors.  The typical reaction
upon finding such an error in your own experiment is to slap yourself
hard on the forehead and utter something like, "Damn!...I would never
have dreamed THAT could happen."  

Subtle systematic errors cannot be found by analyzing the final report
of an experiment.  By that time any inconsistencies that might have
pointed to such an error have been smoothed over and cultivated out of
the data.  The only way to find such errors is to immerse yourself in
the laboratory with the WORKING experiment and just go over everything
countless times.

Unfortunately, cold fusion experiments do not provide this opportunity. 
As far as I know, it is still not possible to produce a WORKING cold
fusion experiment upon demand.  McKubre, for example, will tell you that
his laboratory has now conducted over 200,000 hours (22 YEARS!!!) of
null-result cold fusion experiments.  Can you imagine how hard it must
be for him to justify continuing with that work?

One sure-fire way to jerk cold fusion out of its hole (6 feet deep, I'm
afraid) is to discover a way to produce the excess heat effect upon
demand.  Ed Storms is uniquely qualified to make this discovery and I
sincerely hope that he will concentrate on that task.  There are other
cold fusion investigators out there who stand a chance of making this
discovery.  I urge all of you to concentrate on this vital task to the
exclusion of all else.

Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 09:10:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06448;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3668171B.35D1 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:08:43 -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: CF debate  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lyAx83.0.Wa1.ES1Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25172
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 12.3.98
  Date:  Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:41:25 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Perhaps I should clear up some points with respect to my
last message.  I do not actually believe that there is
a single "smoking gun" to be discovered that will, with
certainty, account for the excess heat as some experimental
artifact.  Furthmore, even if there is some gross blunder
involved in the measurements, it may not be possible for
someone like me remote from the actual measurements to spot
that smoking gun.  I will say, however, that I have spotted
a number of gross blunders over the years and called them
to the attentian of a wide audience of CANR advocates, who
generally ignore them anyway.

What I do believe is a more appropriate description of the
current state of CANR investigations is that the actual
precision of the measurements is frequently overstated
because the cumulative  effects of a number of error
sources are being overlooked.

So I am sure that Ed Storms measured the power input with
sufficient precision that his errors in that measurement
do not account for more than a small fraction of the apparent
excess heat.  However, it is clear that he did not appreciate
that source of error and evaluate it properly.  I can't
tell you how significant that is for his measurements.
When he sought to assure us that his voltage measurements
are correct, all he mentioned was a comparison to measurements
made with a digital volt meter -- another instrument that
does some sort of averaging. If you set the switch to DC,
that is what it tells you.  It does not determine the "noise
level" on that signal.  I am sure the signal is noisey, but
Ed "averaged" the noise away and, I presume, did not record
it.  Either the signal is not noisey (which I doubt) and
averaging serves no purpose, or it is noisey and averaging
introduces an error.  Interestingly enough the calibration
runs will, in some cases, clearly exhibit different behavior
with regard to noise so, the calibrations do nothing to
insure against this source of error.

We can, of course, move through a discussion of several
other potential error sources, anyone of which is likely
to be insignificant compared to the level of the excess, but
one effect of these multiple sources of error is most
certainly a degrading of the precision of measurement.
It then becomes crucial that we understand just how the
precision is estimated and how we may objectively
evaluate that estimate.

It is to that end that I have attempted to introduce the
concept of recording a distribution for the results of
a large number of measurements to see if the actual
distribution conforms to the statistical model assumed
for these variable results.  That, of course, won't work
for the data that appears to show excess heat because,
it seems, the experimenter has absolutely no control over
the power level of the device.

However, the lack of control applies only to those measurements
that actually result in a CANR effect.  The majority of
measurements never produce the effect (or so we are told) so
they make perfect candidates for my proposed statistical
test.  The challenge is for someone to demonstrate just
how precisely they can measure zero.  It seems to me unlikely
that they will be able to measure an excess much more precisely
than they can measure zero, so we would then have an actual,
objective measure of the precision rather than their estimate.

Interestingly enough, when I have raised questions concerning
the measurement of nothing at all, no one seems ready to address
the topic.  All those zeroes are consigned to the dust bin
without being given any further consideration.  That allows
people to make such obvious errors as asserting that there
are no negative measurements of excess heat.  A data set
which has no negative values cannot possible average to
zero.

As for my "imagining" certain trends in the history of
claims for excess heat, you will force me to access the
archives.  I should think that someone who claims to "review"
the field would not need me to remind him of this history.

Let's pick on an easy one -- CETI and the Patterson Cell.
At one point there was a claim that a public demostration
unit yielded 1300 Watts.  It was,however, noted that the
heat exchanger that had to dump  that load to the atmosphere
was not really adequate for that job.  Then the claimed
power level dropped to 200 Watts.  Finally, to "confirm"
the CETI claims Prof. George Miley put his version of the
device into operation and announced a positive result.
But postive at what level?  Was it 1300 Watts?  NO.
Was it 200 Watts? NO.  Was it 10 Watts? NO. Was it
1 Watt?  NO.  So if you plot the power level vs. time
what is the slope for these data?

Can you find me one example in which the historic trend for
the claimed level of excess heat is clearly upward?  I
will find you examples where the trend is clearly downward.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 09:22:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26489;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:18:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:18:04 -0800
Message-ID: <3668196D.3AF4 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:18:37 -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: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fvBPT.0.pT6.Cb1Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25173
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 12.3.98
  Date:  Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:09:26 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> >Scott Chubb is in a difficult position, trying to sell his ideas when
> there is so little experimental
> >evidence to confirm his notions.
>
> Believe it or not, predictions of the high-loading requirement, the
> release of untrapped 4He in surface regions and outside the lattice, the
> lack of high energy particles and neutrons, that cracks disrupt Cold
> Fusion, and other phenomena were all made prior to their being
> observed.  The ideas were "not sold".  They existed.
>
> >Of course, there is experimental
> >evidence concerning this process that might have bearing on the Chubb
> >claims, but you may note just how carefully he has had to craft his
> >theory to keep from making the phenomenon observable.
>
> The theory preceded the experimental observations cited above.  The
> theory has made additional predictions that can be tested.  These
> include a number of triggering phenomena, optimal crystal sizes, etc.
> Since the goal of theory is to guide experiment, and experiment has
> matched theory, it can actually be said that the theory preceded the
> observation of the phenomena and provides a guideline for what should be
> expected.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear on this point.  Of course there are
observations relating to the supposed CF phenomena which are in
agreement with your theoretical modeling of the process.  What I would
hope is that at some point your theory could address observations which
deal more directly with questions of quantum coherence, etc.  I don't
happen to agree with you that the wide assortment of CF claims actually
confirm, in detail, the predictions of your model.  Dependence on
crystal size, for example, is hardly well established experimentally.

> >I agree with you that the nature of the interaction is significant.  It
> >takes the long-range coulomb interaction to manifest such effects.  You
> >seem to not be addressing the strong interaction, however, which has
> >a markedly different radial dependence.  It is not long-range in the
> >same sense as is the coulomb potential, and, it seems to me, that must
> >have some significance with respect to the "self-interaction" over
> >distances comparable to the lattice spacing.  You keep avoiding my
> >questions which relate to the internal wave functions of nuclei, which,
> >I suggest, are dominated by this short-range, strong interaction.
>
> I see from this comment and the following comments that there is a
> fundamental point of confusion that still exists.  We are treating the
> strong interaction as it is normally treated, in every respect, except
> one:  we are not assuming that in the final state 4He nucleus, in the
> strong interaction, the dependence of the nuclear wave function on the
> "deuteron-deuteron" separation can be treated as being independent of
> the electromagnetic interaction.  We are assuming that in this variable
> (and in this variable alone), it is necessary to impose Bloch symmetry
> on the associated wave function.  The reason for this is that in the
> associated electromagnetic interaction (as a consequence of resonant
> coherence from periodic order), large transfers of momentum can occur
> locally that "penetrate" the "normal" length scales associated with the
> strong interaction.

I don't know where you got the notion that nuclear physicists, in
general, or me in particular treat the strong interactions and
electromagnetic interactions as "separable."  I think you are wrong on
this point.  I certainly would never attempt to treat the
deuteron-deuteron interaction that way because it is quite clear from
experimental observations that the coupling between these two has a
profound influence on low-energy reaction processes.  Perhaps your
confusion has to do with precisely which source terms for the
electromagnetic interaction are considered and which are separated.  I
suspect that you have not sorted out various contributions according to
their strength.

> I have cited reasons (rules), based on the requirements of
> Born-Oppenheimer separability and the need to eliminate latent heat,
> that are responsiblefor imposing this symmetry on the nuclear portion of
> the wave function.  I see by your comments that my last set of comments
> have not been understood with regard to this point.
>
> Let's be specific.  There are four nucleons at r1, r2, r3, and r4 in the
> 4He final state and a lattice.  The center of mass rcm of the 4He to an
> excellent approximation is rcm=.25*(r1+r2+r3+r4).  The wave function
> associated with this dependence is described by an electromagnetic, ion
> band state.  (This takes account of part of the dependence on the
> lattice, but only part of it.)  There are still four nucleons, each of
> which has a position, at any one of Ncell locations, defined by its
> distance from rcm, modulo a Bravais lattice vector.  Let's put a proton
> at r1, a neutron at r2, a second proton at r3, and second neutron at
> r4.  The claim is that the dependence of the strong interaction on the
> difference between the centers of mass of proton-neutron pairs (for
> example, pn12-pn34=(r1+r2-r3-r4)*.5, and pn14-pn32.5*(r1+r4-r3-r2)) can
> not be treated as being separable from the electromagnetic interaction.
> This is because large amounts of momentum can be imparted locally as a
> result resonant coherence resulting from periodic order.

I am indeed puzzled by this and am beginning to wonder whether your
"no latent heat" condition" is not covering something very significant
to this discussion.  Just what is included in "latent heat" and why
is it significant to your model?  The reason I ask is that I sense that
something is missing from you description of 4He above relative to
how I would expect 4He to be described.  What I have not seen in your
comments is a clear statement of how you address differences in total
potential energy for the various configurations?  Is that somehow
related to the "no latent heat" condition?  If it is, you are being
pretty darned sneaky.

> In fact, it is only necessary (and in fact required) to include the
> Bloch symmetry in the dependence in one of the two differences
> (pn12-pn32 or pn14-pn32).  But it is necessary to include this
> dependence in order to account for the fact that as a result of resonant
> coherent interaction from periodic order, the electromagnetic and strong
> interactions can become coupled (because the electromagnetic interaction
> can impart huge amounts of momentum locally) in a non-separable way.

Could you be more specific on this point?  What accounts for this
coupling, and can you describe it in terms of a multipole expansion
which is something to which I can more generally relate?

> This dependence simply is not included in conventional nuclear physics.
> In the model we are proposing, it is.  In practice, there is a simply
> way of handling this; it involves quite literally saying that the
> reaction (i.e., the change in the zero of kinetic energy) is distributed
> coherently throughout the solid, while computing the "effective strong
> force" interaction, using conventional nuclear physics, and coupling the
> energy to the lattice by shifting the zero of kinetic energy of the
> lattice relative to its boundary.  The reason this prescription works
> and is unique is because it maintains the Born-Oppenheimer separability
> of the wave functions and the separability of the nuclear and
> electromagnetic interactions.

Please tell me about changes in the zero of potential energy as we move
from having two deuterons to having one 4He.  I also am still puzzled
as to how you can put the neutrons several unit vectors away from the
protons and not have them interacting with other nucleons in the
lattice. Don't tell me it's because those terms aren't included in your
potential.

> I am going to skip many of the comments you have made that seem to
> relate to the confusion associated with this point.
>
>
> >I am NOT the one who is confused here.  I am not equating "internal"
> >coordinates of the deuteron with anything relating to deuteron-deuteron
> >separations.  You are the one who keeps using the word "internal"
> >without saying internal to what.  The problem I am having with you is
> >that you won't talk about the internal wave function of the deuteron or
> >of a 4He, for example.  You are attempting to finesse the nuclear
> >physics, while not actually addressing the key aspects of the wave
> >functions.
>
> I hope my last set of comments answers this.
>
> >Of course "maintaining the separability between the interactions" is
> >important for your theory.  But what you ignore is that the separability
> >is appropriate only so long as there is no strong interaction between
> >two deuterons.  No strong interaction means no nuclear reaction.
>
> Again, see comments above; note where I am saying that the separability
> breaks down and where it does not and why.  Note also that in
> conventional nuclear physics it is always assumed that electromagnetic
> and strong interactions are separable.  This is because of the very
> different time and length scales that are involved.
>
> >> I have suggested in the past that attempting to measure the magnetic
> >> moments of D+ in ion band states using NMR, it may be possible to
> >> trigger Cold Fusion reactions.
> >
> >Well, until someone does an experiment, we don't really have much to
> >talk about do we?  I would say that your theory should be tested in some
> >domain other than cold fusion calorimetry.
>
> It was suggested (I believe by Bockris?) at ICCF4 that magnetism of this
> sort can enhance Cold Fusion.  I have heard privately that others have
> also found this to be the case.  But I have seen nothing published about
> this.

Well, it is virtually impossible to establish that anything "enhances"
the Cold Fusion effect, when no one can even establish a level against
which such enhancements may be judged.  Has anyone demostrated a simple
binary effect?  You know, magnet on, magnet off with the power level
responding immediately and dramatically?  I would think that anything
like that would move to publication with some dispatch such that we
would not have to speculate about what you have heard.

> Phrases like "stumbled into the wrong camp when you allied yourself"
> don't really serve a useful purpose.  Why not leave off the entire last
> sentence of this comment?

I'll leave off such comments if you will promise never to drop
Schwinger's name into this discussion again.

> Quantum mechanics does pay attention to coherence and periodic order.
> Quantum mechanically, it is impossible to say how many D's are in the
> solid, in band states, and interacting through a distributed nuclear
> reaction, resulting from resonant coherent interaction due to periodic
> order.

I have not been questioning the significance of coherence and periodic
order for quantum mechanics in general.  The question is whether this
applies to the system at hand.  You perhaps indicate that it would if
certain assumed conditions are met, but what have you done to actually
demonstrate that your assumptions are at all reasonable?  Now my
approach has been to try to determine just what it is that you think
provides a mechanism for a silent, undetectable transition from deuteron
pairs to 4He.  I don't find anything in the many transmissions that
deals with, for example, energy differences between the two systems. 
Yet, that clearly is at the heart of the matter.  I ask that you tell us
when and where the transition occurs, and how you know that it does
occur.  Do you have "before" and "after" wave functions?  What precisely
is the potential for which each of said wave functions is an appropriate
eigenstate, and how do you know that?

> >Maybe it would help clarify things if you would actually state what
> >time scales you are considering here.  What could be more disruptive
> >to your assumed periodic order than having two deuterons fuse?  As
> >I suggested the Born-Oppenheimer separability goes out the window
> >as soon as two deuterons interact strongly.
>
> I hope that the comments above about when and where separability holds
> have sufficiently clarified this point.

Nope.  Still not clear.

> >Well, it seems you effort to keep cold fusion from taking on some of the
> >characteristics of ordinary fusion has failed.  You have to chose
> >between a preservation of order in a lattice of deuterons which do not
> >interact strongly or disruption of assumed order because the deuterons
> >do interact.
>
> The deuterons do interact strongly.  And they can do it without
> disrupting periodic order.  This is the important point.

So who instructs the deuterons not to be disruptive?  It seems to me
that you are ascribing some sort of will to the lattice.  Periodic order
will be maintained through a transition only so long as we have perfect
periodic interaction potentials, right?  But we are not dealing with
perfection. That's only your model.

> >If the interaction involves potentials that are much
> >stronger than those responsible for maintaining lattice symmetry,it
> >seems unreasonable to assume that those very weak terms will dictate how
> >the reaction process will proceed.
>
> I am saying that the potentials must be treated as being of comparable
> scale (as a consequence of coherence).  But this not only can be
> accomplished, it is necessary for this to be the case under certain
> circumstances.  In particular, to minimize energy, while maintaining
> periodic order, this will occur.

Well, isn't this a point that we need to discuss further?  How do you
demonstrate that the potentials in question are actually comparable?
Have you just assumed that they will be?

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 09:50:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA04646;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:43:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:43:21 -0800
Message-ID: <36681F5A.73A1 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:43:54 -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: Hansen: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0iWW43.0.S81.uy1Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25174
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.25.98 Reply
  Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:14:54 -0700
  From:  "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net


[Comments from Lee Hansen]

Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.24.98
      Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to
be talking past each other.  Certain facts exist which are not a matter
of debate.  If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts
must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.

To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we
stand.

1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
location for recombination within the cell. This change produces a
change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This
model depends on several assumptions:

Recombination does not have to be the only "excess" heat source to
consider. If the power distribution in the cell changes for any reason,
then the effects Kirk talks about may become important.

1. The location for recombination can change.
2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.

These assumptions are answered by the following facts:

I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
experimental fact.

[Not necessarily. It depends on the catalytic nature of the electrode
surface. Nobody knows how efficient PdHx is at catalyzing the reduction
of oxygen.]

I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.

[How do you know this "fact"? If the solution is stirred sufficiently to
guarantee thermal homogeneity, you cannot avoid mixing oxygen into the
solution at the cathode.]

I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
an experimental fact.

[Again, how do you know? The only way to know would be to cement a
heater to the recombiner and test the accuracy of your statement with
power similar to that developed by the reaction. Unless the heat loss
path from the recombiner is the same as that from the solution, your
statement cannot be true.
Although I have never operated one, I have been told that recombiners
have the tricky habit of cycling on and off. How would that affect your
measurement?]

>From these facts I conclude that:

1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.
2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
purpose, is also small.

Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
can explain excess energy.

[Little or no experimental evidence exists to show that they don't. That
is the real problem.]
---
You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact.

You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general
statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.

[That none of us know the answer to.]

You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss
of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an
assumption.

(Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area
exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater
effect.)

[The principle is still the same. There are several heat loss paths from
your calorimeter of varying thermal conductivity. Changing the location
of the heat source can potentially alter the ratio of losses through
these paths, and that changes the apparent calibration constant.]

>From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct.
You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.

[How would you propose we obtain those facts? You must do the
experiments, since it is your equipment and you are making the claims
that must be supported.]

----

I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location
of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any
book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his
comments.)

[That is not a fact and cannot be verified by any of the books I know
of. The only design that would come close is one in which the experiment
is completely enclosed by the calorimeter vessel. Any connection to the
outside (wires, etc.) would not be allowed. Also, the heat distribution
within the calorimeter vessel during calibration must approximate that
during an experiment. There is no design that gets completely away from
that requirement, not matter how you do the measurement. Some designs
are obviously more sensitive to the problem than others. It is not
usually discussed in the literature, because it is assumed that
everybody knows it. Furthermore, the problem gets worse as the power
gets larger, because temperature gradients get larger. Until cold fusion
only rarely had anyone worried about or attempted any calorimetry at
such high powers.]

I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy
production.  This is an experimental fact.

[As I have asked before, you must reference such statements so we know
what experiment you are referring to.]

>From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general
application.

[You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the
location of heat production.]

>From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected
by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any
experimental evidence.

-----

You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured.
This in a myth.  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by
some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry.
However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles,
Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my
reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout
the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of
palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.

-----
[The calorimetry that Miles has published is certainly dubious at best.
Your calorimeter has not been adequately tested. And McKubre as near as
I can tell does not see any excess heat.]

If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me
your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.

[My evidence is that your evidence is incomplete.]

Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general world.
These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well
understood phenomenon. If we can not agree on some of the basic facts,
then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes
hopeless.  This is the basic problem I'm having with Rich and Dick as
well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is
pointless.  It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a
client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for
the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the
latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.

I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some
papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the
discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth
remembering with joy.=

Ed Storms

[I agree that cooperation and trust of people is necessary for science
to proceed, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not and
how far to trust the instruments and the results they produce. You have
far more faith in your calorimeter than I do. Long experience has taught
me to mistrust any calorimetric measurement until it has been verified
in several ways by different workers. And just repeating the mistakes of
previous workers does not count. You need to listen carefully to
suggestions made by others of potential errors and not reject them quite
so readily. You also need to be more skeptical of your own results. If
not you are inevitably going to end up vigorously defending bad data.]

Lee Hansen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 10:42:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03165;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:40:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:40:46 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b28ddbfd9980 [12.64.35.129]>
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981204104900.01136224 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:37:09 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"alm971.0.Nn.jo2Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25175
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis -

   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
   >  of particles to the secondary.

Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
shield contribute to the impairment?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 11:16:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17647;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:15:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:15:31 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981204192214.0117c13c 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, 04 Dec 1998 14:22:14 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"4V3rO.0.fJ4.JJ3Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25176
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 08:37 AM 12/4/98 -1000, you wrote:

>   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
>   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
>   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
>   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
>   >  of particles to the secondary.
>
>Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
>shield contribute to the impairment?


I believe eddy current losses only occur in magnetic materials.


Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 11:36:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26719;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:35:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:35:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981204142838.00825720 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 14:28:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981204192214.0117c13c popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mQp4a2.0.LX6.Hc3Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25178
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 02:22 PM 12/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>I believe eddy current losses only occur in magnetic materials.
>
>
>Regards;
>Dennis

  Nope.
  Eddy currents are induced in electrically conducting
bodies by variations in magnetic flux density.

  The variations in magnetic flux density can be caused by
a time varying magnetic field (or a spatially varying magnetic
field with movement - see: convective derivative)

  Sometime called "Foucault currents" in very old literature.
  Hope that helps.

   Mitchell Swartz


  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 11:36:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26263;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:34:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:34:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3668397E.7E20 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:35:26 -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: Storms: Little: Blue: CF debate  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"furxf2.0.HQ6.Ub3Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25177
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Little: Storms: Blue: CF debate 12.4.98
       Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:32:31 +0000
       From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To: rmforall earthlink.net
 
Reply to Scott Little by Ed Storms
> 
> Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 12.3.98
>   Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 09:28:53 -0600
>   From:  Scott Little <little eden.com>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> At 23:40 12/3/98 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >Subject:  Re: Blue: Storms: Chubb: CF debate, band state theory 12.3.98
> >       Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:04:28 +0000
> >       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
> 
> >I’m getting tired of dancing around the same issues.  I realize Dick
> >needs to find some error to explain the claims.  Otherwise, he would
> >have to agree that some of the amazing claims are real.  However, if
> >this discussion is to advance, Dick needs to come up with some new and,
> >hopefully, original suggestions.  Simply stating over and over again
> >that an error is real, when my statement of the evidence shows
> >otherwise, is a waste of time.  If Dick does not believe my
> >interpretation, then he needs to show where the error actually lies
> >using experimental information.
> 
> I'm not surprised to see this kind of stalemate emerge in this
> discussion.
> Either Ed is right...cold fusion exists...or Dick is right...cold fusion
> does not exist.  No amount of arguing over old experimental results is
> going to settle the matter. 

Well, at least Scott and I can agree. However, the old experimental
data  make a good case for going to the trouble of getting new data. In
spite of the damper skeptics have placed on funding, such new data are
being acquired and, in several cases, are looking very good indeed. Of
course, because of the very high standards demanded by skeptics, a long
time will pass before this work can be published. 

>Yes, some of the old results APPEAR to be
> compelling.  No, I can't identify any errors in them...but that does NOT
> mean that they are error free.  In my experience, calorimetry excels
> above all other metrologies at providing a fertile medium for the
> spawning and nuturing of subtle systematic errors.  The typical reaction
> upon finding such an error in your own experiment is to slap yourself
> hard on the forehead and utter something like, "Damn!...I would never
> have dreamed THAT could happen."

Again, I agree.  However, a lot depends on the level of power one is
trying to detect. Finding a few milliwatts is far more difficult than
detecting several watts. Dick and others keep suggesting errors that
would apply to a milliwatt claim rather than to the 2-7 watt level I
have seen. 

> Subtle systematic errors cannot be found by analyzing the final report
> of an experiment.  By that time any inconsistencies that might have
> pointed to such an error have been smoothed over and cultivated out of
> the data.  The only way to find such errors is to immerse yourself in
> the laboratory with the WORKING experiment and just go over everything
> countless times.

Errors can be found in several ways.  If a person is so inclined, just
sitting and imagining possible errors (ala. Dick Blue) is used
initially.  After these possibilities are examined, as they have been,
and corrections made, another method remains. In this case, various
parameters are changed to see how the effect is changed. For example,
the calibration can be determined by applying electrolytic power and the
result can be compared to the cell constant obtained from Joule heating.
If the resulting constants agree, we can eliminate errors caused by a
shift in recombination (ala. Kirk) and errors introduced by noise on the
electrolytic voltage (ala. Dick). We can introduce samples of various
sizes and see whether the effect is related to size, current density, or
applied current. We can also determine whether the effect is related to
the nature of the palladium, such as composition.  It is very hard to
imagine an error that would suddenly come into being just when the
composition had reached a critical value, Kirk's idea not withstanding.
 
> Unfortunately, cold fusion experiments do not provide this opportunity.
> As far as I know, it is still not possible to produce a WORKING cold
> fusion experiment upon demand.  McKubre, for example, will tell you that
> his laboratory has now conducted over 200,000 hours (22 YEARS!!!) of
> null-result cold fusion experiments.  Can you imagine how hard it must
> be for him to justify continuing with that work? 

If the effect were caused by random error, I would expect many more
positive results during all that time. When positive results were seen,
they were clearly related to the nature of the palladium being used at
the time and not related to the nature of the calorimetry, which was
constant. Skeptics can not have it both ways, i.e. complain about all
the negative results and then propose random error as being the cause
when excess power is seen.  It's like flipping a coin and never getting
heads on Sundays, and then explaining the result by a random process
because it was random every other day except Sunday.
 
> One sure-fire way to jerk cold fusion out of its hole (6 feet deep, I'm
> afraid) is to discover a way to produce the excess heat effect upon
> demand.  Ed Storms is uniquely qualified to make this discovery and I
> sincerely hope that he will concentrate on that task.  There are other
> cold fusion investigators out there who stand a chance of making this
> discovery.  I urge all of you to concentrate on this vital task to the
> exclusion of all else.

Absolutely correct!  We need to find a way to make the effect occur on
demand even in the hands of the least skilled. Several methods are
claimed to be completely reproducible but they require expensive and
complex equipment for which funding for construction is not available.
Unfortunately, the simple, electrolytic method gives the greatest
challenge of all the methods. At the present time, the equally simple
Case method may take the prize.  Meanwhile, I'm searching for the magic
material using the electrolytic method, in my own self-built laboratory,
and paying for the effort out of my own pocket. Not exactly the best
conditions for finding such an elusive creature. Nevertheless, some
promising leads do exist which I continue to explore.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 13:28:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01266;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:25:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:25:18 -0800
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199812042125.NAA08397 goose.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: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"qaBH32.0.iJ.-C5Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25179
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Dennis, Rick and all,
At 08:37 AM 12/4/98 -1000, you wrote:
>Dennis -
>
>   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
>   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
>   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
>   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
>   >  of particles to the secondary.
>
>Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
>shield contribute to the impairment?
>
If one places the secondary turns of a test transformer in flexible copper
tubing (one wire in the tube), the performance is affected very little, as
long as the tubing isn't connected to produce shorted turns. One can also
try windings with regular coaxial cable to see this. The shield, of course
is another secondary, a bifilar winding of sorts.

A magnetic shield in the B field of the primary may divert some of the flux
from through the turns. There can also be eddy currents in this case. If it
is where there is no primary B field, the induction voltage is not affected,
but once _secondary_ currents flow, magnetic fields are set up in the shield
which change the net flux through the turns and the secondary voltage. I did
these tests where the magnetic shield was not an electric shorted turn.
-Dave


 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 13:53:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00254;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981204165154.00af3100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 16:51:54 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from 
  Deuterium
In-Reply-To: <19981204043549.11962.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7zSU2.0.u3.la5Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25180
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:35 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>   I think you can see the difference, at least if (3) above occurs
>"on the fly" as the two nuclei pass each other. If a compound nucleus
>is formed, as in (4), and if it is spinning, then when it decays after
>a random decay time the products fly off at a (nearly) random angle.
>But if the reaction occurs on the fly, the exit angles of the products
>are strictly constrained. The difference could be seen in a cloud
>chamber or other multidimensional detector.
 
  The problem is that net momentum is conserved, and most of these
experiments are done by targeting thin films with a beam.  So in either
case any particles that don't collide with some other atom in the film go
"downstream" and the others can come off at any angle.

  It might be interesting to try the experiment with two colliding beams,
and I've thought about setting it up.  The problem is that you end up with
a very cheap accelerator but a very exspensive detector.  For example, you
can have one synchrotron containing d+ and another containing carbon ions
with a center of mass energy of say 50 kV.  Actually a better deal would be
to slice the synchrotrons in half and and separate the halves by about ten
meters.  Now you can use one of the big existing detectors.   But if you go
that far, watching collision angles is only part of the fun.  I want to
find out if there are significant numbers of protons.  In most experiments,
the actual numbers of protons are inferred since it is hard to tell a
proton produced by deuterium fission or fusion from all the random protons
from surface contamination. 

                                        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 Dec  4 14:11:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01376;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981204170834.00fbe3c0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 17:08:34 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, John Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981203185534.26372A-100000 antioch-college.e
 du>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981203153819.01687100 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KiKoW1.0.QL.Oq5Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25181
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:04 PM 12/3/98 -0500, John Schnurer wrote:
>	What  type of eddy current?
	
>	What mechanism ?  Are we talking Type I or Type II SC?
 
   Let me answer these in reverse order.  I was describing type I
superconductors.  Type II superconductors allow flux lines to pentrate the
surface at defect sites.  (That however, is what makes them so useful.)

   Now to the eddy currents.  If you move a magnet near a conductor, you
create a current in the conductor.  But superconductors create a very
special case.  Since there is no resistance, the eddy currents do not
decay.  So with a type 1 superconductor, any magnetic field is met by it's
exact image in the bulk superconductor, and the field never penetrates the
surface.  (Until the field gets to Tc at that temperature.  If that happens
the superconductor will transition back to normal state.)   The net result
is that once a type I superconductor becomes superconducting all current
flows on the surface, since the magnetic field from the flow cannot
penetrate the material.

   The type II case is more complex.  Magnetic flux lines can penetrate the
surface, but in most good type II superconductors these flux lines remain
"pinned" to discontinuities in the crystalline structure.  If the lines can
be moved through the volume of the material then you can induce currents in
bulk material.  (But, the (not the electrical technical term) resistance to
moving the flux lines can heat the superconductor.  So type II
superconductors without flux pinning tend to exceed Tc rapidly in the
presence of a changing magnetic field. 


                                        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 Dec  4 14:23:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02133;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981204172148.00fe1100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 17:21:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981203231555.00c3b6d0 cnct.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ogUoK1.0.BX.h06Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25182
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:23 PM 12/3/98 -0500, Keith Nagel wrote:
>Not sure what you're referring to with the .75c, this really
>sounds like a coax spec (typically .7c).

   Twisted pair mostly.  The problem is the TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such
thing as a free lunch) effect.  In a computer, the major problem with any
long (order of one meter) path is crosstalk.  Coax, twisted pair, and
optical fiber can all prevent crosstalk, but they all penalize you in
transmission speed.

                                        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 Dec  4 14:42:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA31058;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:40:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:40:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981204174220.00a9d460 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 17:42:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear 'electricity laser'
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <19981204042317.22419.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZveDy2.0.Cb7.nJ6Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25183
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:23 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:
>   Such ringing is usually due to impedance mismatch. The mix of
>speeds, called dispersion, is small in ordinary metal + insulator wires.

   Define small. ;-)  When designing circuts on the edge of what is
possible, you have follow the design rules.  Even when the first cycle of
ringing is less than 5% of the nominal pulse height, it can cause trouble.

>   No, normally you have no current flowing through the loop while it
>is still a normal conductor. The current appears upon removing the
>external flux source AFTER the ring has cooled below Tc and gone
>superconducting.

    Actually the induced current in the bulk never changes after the
material falls below Tc.  If you do things your way, you get "image"
currents on the surface such that the net current flow is zero after Tc is
reached until the external source is removed.  If you induce the current
and before it decays, remove the external flux you can get a higher net
current, and therefore higher magnetic field.  (But this is focused on type
I bulk superconductors.)

>   Here we have to distinguish between type 1 and type 2
>superconductors. Type 1 conduct current in a very thin skin layer,
>never in bulk. They are limited to low magnetic field strengths. Type
>2 conduct throughout the bulk. They are used to make practical
>magnets, etc. I was talking about coils wound with type 2 material.
 
   You have to play games to get bulk currents in type 1 superconductors.
(see above.)  Type II superconductors with flux pinning do act as you say,
but the technology advances to make flux pinning work occured after my
experiences woking with superconductors.  (Trying to design a computer out
of superconducting and non-superconducting material plated onto a
substrate.  Working designs were just not competitive in performance.)

                                        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 Dec  4 15:04:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06530;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:01:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:01:05 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981204230735.0114f99c 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, 04 Dec 1998 18:07:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"qRUgH1.0.rb1.nc6Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25184
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 02:28 PM 12/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>At 02:22 PM 12/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>>I believe eddy current losses only occur in magnetic materials.


>  Nope.
>  Eddy currents are induced in electrically conducting
>bodies by variations in magnetic flux density.
>
>  The variations in magnetic flux density can be caused by
>a time varying magnetic field (or a spatially varying magnetic
>field with movement - see: convective derivative)
>
>  Sometime called "Foucault currents" in very old literature.
>  Hope that helps.


Yes but are these Foucault currents losses? The electronics dictionary
mentions the losses are in magnetic materials. It looks like there are eddy
currents and there are eddy current losses.


Regards;
Dennis


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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 15:24:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08404;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981204232831.00ef8294 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, 04 Dec 1998 18:28:31 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"1whTS2.0.E32.Bw6Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25185
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 01:25 PM 12/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Dennis, Rick and all,
>At 08:37 AM 12/4/98 -1000, you wrote:
>>Dennis -
>>
>>   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
>>   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
>>   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
>>   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
>>   >  of particles to the secondary.
>>
>>Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
>>shield contribute to the impairment?
>>
>If one places the secondary turns of a test transformer in flexible copper
>tubing (one wire in the tube), the performance is affected very little, as
>long as the tubing isn't connected to produce shorted turns. One can also
>try windings with regular coaxial cable to see this. The shield, of course
>is another secondary, a bifilar winding of sorts.

I'm not sure if that's what the author means when he specifies completely
shielding the secondary. Should the load be shielded also?


Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 15:38:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA22044;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:34:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:34:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981204173339.00a14200 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 17:33:39 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981204230735.0114f99c popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7CDrZ2.0.IO5.567Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25186
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 18:07 12/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>Yes but are these Foucault currents losses? The electronics dictionary
>mentions the losses are in magnetic materials. It looks like there are eddy
>currents and there are eddy current losses.

You have so-called "hysteresis losses" in magnetic materials. They result
from inelastic realignment of the magnetic domains when the magnetization
of a material is changed.  Some materials (like most ferrites) have very
low hysteresis losses and are therefore very good for high-frequency xfmr
cores.

Separate from that, you have eddy current losses in all conductive
materials when permeated by changing magnetic fields.  You can experience
eddy current losses first-hand by taking a strong NdFeB magnet and sliding
it rapidly over a thick Cu sheet (at least 1/16"....1/4" is better).  The
drag is quite noticeable.  Tilt the sheet up until gravity makes the magnet
slide down...it will behave as it the sheet is covered with thick oil.



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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 16:07:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA11613;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981205001223.00eebe2c 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, 04 Dec 1998 19:12:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ic3iS.0.Nr2.oZ7Qs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25187
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Hi;


At 05:33 PM 12/4/98 -0600, you wrote:

(snip)

>Separate from that, you have eddy current losses in all conductive
>materials when permeated by changing magnetic fields.  You can experience
>eddy current losses first-hand by taking a strong NdFeB magnet and sliding
>it rapidly over a thick Cu sheet (at least 1/16"....1/4" is better).  The
>drag is quite noticeable.  Tilt the sheet up until gravity makes the magnet
>slide down...it will behave as it the sheet is covered with thick oil.

Could it be that copper is slightly magnetic?

Anyways, the point seems to be that the electrons do not originate from a
powersupply. Cater suggests that they go through the wire insulation and
comes from outside the wire. He says that the electrons would quickly be
used up if they came from supply or the wire conductor.?!


Regards;
Dennis


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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 17:29:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26914;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:23:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:23:44 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:23:39 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: magnetic materials, shielded secondaries
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981205001223.00eebe2c popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981204163537.11943J-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ugAy3.0.Pa6.Vi8Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25188
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

> >slide down...it will behave as it the sheet is covered with thick oil.
> 
> Could it be that copper is slightly magnetic?

Nope, this electromagnetic braking effect is well known (and my copper
plate does not attract my NIB magnets the least little bit).  See this
page for fun and games involving eddy-current drag effects:

   http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/neodemo.html

Transformer cores suffer eddy current losses because of their
conductivity.  Laminations with insulating surfaces are an attempt to make
the iron be insulating but without destroying its heat conductivity.  An
ideal transformer core would be a perfect insulator.

> Anyways, the point seems to be that the electrons do not originate from a
> powersupply. Cater suggests that they go through the wire insulation and
> comes from outside the wire. He says that the electrons would quickly be
> used up if they came from supply or the wire conductor.?!

The above resembles a common misconception about electric circuits.  Now
don't get me started!  :)  Most elementary books teach that a power supply
is a source of electrons.  This is wrong (and the error is not corrected
until we encounter undergraduate physics books.)  In reality, all power
supplies are CHARGE PUMPS.  The charges are supplied by the wires. 

Where do the electrons in a transformer secondary circuit come from? 
Easy: copper is made of, in part, mobile electrons.  The electrons of
copper do not hang around the copper atoms, instead they "orbit" 
throughout the whole volume of metal.  This is commonly called the
"electron sea" or "sea of charge."  All wires act as if they are already
pre-filled with electric fluid.

I did not figure out the above viewpoint until after engineering school. 
My early science textbooks taught me a number of misconceptions about
electricity, and this "interlocking network of misconceptions" was
tenacious.  It took me a good deal of effort to unlearn all the crap.  I
found that I did not understand electricity until I had done so.  For
others in a similar situation, I've put together a webpage which may make
it easier to go through this "unlearning" process: 

  http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/elect.hmtl


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Dec  4 18:28:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13674;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:24:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:24:31 -0800
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199812050224.SAA05570 hawk.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: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"AfDpb2.0.ZL3.Ub9Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25189
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Dennis and all,
At 06:28 PM 12/4/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>>   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
>>>   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
>>>   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
>>>   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
>>>   >  of particles to the secondary.
>>>
>>>Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
>>>shield contribute to the impairment?
>>>
>>If one places the secondary turns of a test transformer in flexible copper
>>tubing (one wire in the tube), the performance is affected very little, as
>>long as the tubing isn't connected to produce shorted turns. One can also
>>try windings with regular coaxial cable to see this. The shield, of course
>>is another secondary, a bifilar winding of sorts.
>
>I'm not sure if that's what the author means when he specifies completely
>shielding the secondary. Should the load be shielded also?
>
Well you could put the load in the tubing or another copper box, as long as
you don't short the turns formed by the shield. I don't think it will make
much difference for 60Hz and a relative low impedance load. I don't know
what Cater did.

Can you state again the paper by him, I must have missed it.
-Dave

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 19:40:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03848;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:38:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:38:55 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981205034557.01156698 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, 04 Dec 1998 22:45:57 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: magnetic materials, shielded secondaries
Resent-Message-ID: <"7aKdJ3.0.zx.EhAQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25190
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 05:23 PM 12/4/98 -0800, you wrote:

(snip)

>Where do the electrons in a transformer secondary circuit come from? 
>Easy: copper is made of, in part, mobile electrons.  The electrons of
>copper do not hang around the copper atoms, instead they "orbit" 
>throughout the whole volume of metal.  This is commonly called the
>"electron sea" or "sea of charge."  All wires act as if they are already
>pre-filled with electric fluid.

Cater does say that the electron number is proportional to the cross
sectional area of the wire (Awesome Life Force p271). I guess the shielded
transformer secondary is flawed if copper or aluminum is used (p215). Maybe
have a sufficient space to avoid magnetic interaction with the shield? How
about bismuth shielding; diamagnetic? I think I saw an experiment with a
Reich Orgone Accumulator shielding a circuit? Ah ha! p244 - UFO's draw
electrons away from wires thus interrupting current flow.


(snip)



Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 19:42:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05148;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:41:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:41:16 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981205034818.0114f684 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, 04 Dec 1998 22:48:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Resent-Message-ID: <"A9xP23.0.MG1.SjAQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25191
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 06:24 PM 12/4/98 -0800, you wrote:

>Well you could put the load in the tubing or another copper box, as long as
>you don't short the turns formed by the shield. I don't think it will make
>much difference for 60Hz and a relative low impedance load. I don't know
>what Cater did.
>
>Can you state again the paper by him, I must have missed it.

The Awesome Life Force p215


Regards;
Dennis


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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 20:26:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA22702;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:25:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:25:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981205043214.01172598 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, 04 Dec 1998 23:32:14 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Is there any law?
Resent-Message-ID: <"9EOR52.0.ZY5.vMBQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25192
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vo;

I was wondering if there was any law against free energy/antigravity devices?


Regards;
Dennis


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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 21:23:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA10587;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:22:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:22:11 -0800
Message-ID: <3668C301.70B6 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 22:22:09 -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: Storms: Hansen: Shanahan: recombination artifact  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"C5Sw52.0.Lb2.3CCQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25193
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Re: Hansen: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 12.4.98
       Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 14:43:20 +0000
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Lee Hansen by Ed Storms
> 
> Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.25.98 Reply
>   Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:14:54 -0700
>   From:  "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> [Comments from Lee Hansen]
> 
> Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.24.98
>       Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
>       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms
> 
> Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to
> be talking past each other.  Certain facts exist which are not a matter
> of debate.  If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts
> must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.
> 
> To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we
> stand.
> 
> 1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
> location for recombination within the cell. This change produces a
> change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This
> model depends on several assumptions:
> 
> Recombination does not have to be the only "excess" heat source to
> consider. If the power distribution in the cell changes for any reason,
> then the effects Kirk talks about may become important.
> 
> 1. The location for recombination can change.
> 2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.
> 
> These assumptions are answered by the following facts:
> 
> I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
> current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
> important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
> experimental fact.
> 
> [Not necessarily. It depends on the catalytic nature of the electrode
> surface. Nobody knows how efficient PdHx is at catalyzing the reduction
> of oxygen.]

As I recall, you were a co-author on a paper by Steve Jones which
purported to measure recombination caused by PdH, and from this study
the authors concluded that all of the published excess heat measurements
could be explained by unrecognized recombination. Do you remember this
work and wish to change your statement or the conclusion reached in the
paper?

> I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
> cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
> the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.
> 
> [How do you know this "fact"? If the solution is stirred sufficiently to
> guarantee thermal homogeneity, you cannot avoid mixing oxygen into the
> solution at the cathode.]

Yes, stirring does cause mixing, but as anyone who has looked into a
cell knows, most of the bubbles circulate well away from the cathode and
gradually rise to the surface.  Because my cathode is surrounded by a
mesh of Pt, at least one half of the oxygen stays outside of this cage
and is completely unavailable to the cathode. The remainder within the
cage rise quickly to the surface, because stirring does not reach this
region, and the convection currents are down at the wall and up at the
center where the cathode is located.
 
> I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
> recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
> an experimental fact.
> 
> [Again, how do you know? The only way to know would be to cement a
> heater to the recombiner and test the accuracy of your statement with
> power similar to that developed by the reaction. Unless the heat loss
> path from the recombiner is the same as that from the solution, your
> statement cannot be true.
> Although I have never operated one, I have been told that recombiners
> have the tricky habit of cycling on and off. How would that affect your
> measurement?]

When calibration is done by Joule heating, no heat is released at the
recombiner.  When the same calibration is done by applying electrolytic
current, the recombiner becomes hot. In spite of this difference in
temperature, the calibrations constants are the same. Recombiners do not
have a tricky habit as you describe. In my case, I use an external
recombiner in which a thermistor is located.  Any failure of the
internal recombiner is noticed as an increase in temperature of the
external recombiner.

> >From these facts I conclude that:
> 
> 1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.
> 2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
> purpose, is also small.
> 
> Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
> can explain excess energy.
> 
> [Little or no experimental evidence exists to show that they don't. That
> is the real problem.]

The real problem is that you do not know the experimental evidence which
exists.

> You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact.
> 
> You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general
> statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.
> 
> [That none of us know the answer to.]

Not an exact answer but a good guess can be made using your own
experience.
 
> You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss
> of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an
> assumption.
> 
> (Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area
> exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater
> effect.)
> 
> [The principle is still the same. There are several heat loss paths from
> your calorimeter of varying thermal conductivity. Changing the location
> of the heat source can potentially alter the ratio of losses through
> these paths, and that changes the apparent calibration constant.]

Of course, the potential is present but an experimental test, as
described above, does not show the effect you propose.
 
> >From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct.
> You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.
> 
> [How would you propose we obtain those facts? You must do the
> experiments, since it is your equipment and you are making the claims
> that must be supported.]

An error is being proposed based on known physical processes. To make a
case, you would have to show that sufficient oxygen was available to the
cathode to cause a marked change in the location of heat production.  A
good guess could be made, and I suggest that at most 10% of the oxygen
could be recombined at the cathode under the best of conditions. This
would cause a shift of power of 350 mW at the highest current. Would you
expect this shift to cause 4 W of apparent excess energy?  I leave it to
you to carry the analysis to the next step with this example as a guide.

It makes no sense to suggest errors just because you can imagine them,
and then, in the face of experimental evidence and simple calculations 
to the contrary, insist they exist.  Give me a break and admit that some
of your suggestions may not be important.
 
> I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location
> of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any
> book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his
> comments.)
> 
> [That is not a fact and cannot be verified by any of the books I know
> of. The only design that would come close is one in which the experiment
> is completely enclosed by the calorimeter vessel. Any connection to the
> outside (wires, etc.) would not be allowed. Also, the heat distribution
> within the calorimeter vessel during calibration must approximate that
> during an experiment. There is no design that gets completely away from
> that requirement, not matter how you do the measurement. Some designs
> are obviously more sensitive to the problem than others. It is not
> usually discussed in the literature, because it is assumed that
> everybody knows it. Furthermore, the problem gets worse as the power
> gets larger, because temperature gradients get larger. Until cold fusion
> only rarely had anyone worried about or attempted any calorimetry at
> such high powers.]

I thought you had a background in calorimetry.  I'm sorry if I was
mistaken. The calorimeters I described are designed to reduce the effect
of internal gradients and succeed well enough to be accepted by many
other fields requiring accurate heat measurement.  As for the leads, the
calorimeter is placed in an environment which is at the same temperature
as the interior. Therefore, no heat can pass through the leads.  Power
is applied to the interior and this power is adjusted to keep the
interior temperature constant as the studied reactions release heat.
This is the method McKubre used.  I suggest you read his papers.

I think you will find that bomb calorimetry, on which much accepted
thermodynamic data are based, uses such high powers.

> I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy
> production.  This is an experimental fact.
> 
> [As I have asked before, you must reference such statements so we know
> what experiment you are referring to.]

Please read my reviews for such references.

> >From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general
> application.
> 
> [You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the
> location of heat production.]

I do not know what this statement means.
 
> >From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected
> by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any
> experimental evidence.
> 
> -----
> 
> You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured.
> This in a myth.  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by
> some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry.
> However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles,
> Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my
> reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout
> the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of
> palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.
> 
> -----
> [The calorimetry that Miles has published is certainly dubious at best.
> Your calorimeter has not been adequately tested. And McKubre as near as
> I can tell does not see any excess heat.]
> 
> If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me
> your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.
> 
> [My evidence is that your evidence is incomplete.]

In other words, you can make any crazy suggestion to reject the claims
which I must then refute with evidence. You have no responsibility in
this regard. This approach is much like politics rather than in science.

> Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general world.
> These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well
> understood phenomenon. If we can not agree on some of the basic facts,
> then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes
> hopeless.  This is the basic problem I'm having with Rich and Dick as
> well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is
> pointless.  It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a
> client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for
> the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the
> latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.
> 
> I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some
> papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the
> discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth
> remembering with joy.=
> 
> [I agree that cooperation and trust of people is necessary for science
> to proceed, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not and
> how far to trust the instruments and the results they produce. You have
> far more faith in your calorimeter than I do. Long experience has taught
> me to mistrust any calorimetric measurement until it has been verified
> in several ways by different workers. And just repeating the mistakes of
> previous workers does not count. You need to listen carefully to
> suggestions made by others of potential errors and not reject them quite
> so readily. You also need to be more skeptical of your own results. If
> not you are inevitably going to end up vigorously defending bad data.]

You presume I have not examined any of the potential errors and that I
have heard the various suggestions for the first time.  You further
assume that I am not skeptical of my results.  I am very skeptical, but
after this skepticism has been satisfied by repeated error checking and
repeated positive results, I accept the data.  This approach is in
direct contrast to other "skeptics".  I can appreciate that many people
have not spent as much time as I have in analyzing data and have not
seen the apparatus.  Reasonable questions and suggestions are expected. 
However, I also expect that when these questions are answered, we agree
about what is happening and move on. In contrast, no quarter is given in
these discussions, even to admit the truth of the most obvious
statements on my part. If you or any one else can suggest a source of
error I have overlooked, I would be most happy to check the data and, if
you are found to be correct, renounce my claims.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 21:38:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14561;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:35:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:35:03 -0800
Message-ID: <3668C61B.7F earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 22:35:23 -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  12.4.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_04Mb3.0.NZ3.7OCQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25194
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 12.4.98
       Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 16:16:59 +0000
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Dick Blue by Ed Storms
> 
> Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: CF debate 12.3.98
>   Date:  Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:41:25 -0500 (EST)
>   From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Perhaps I should clear up some points with respect to my
> last message.  I do not actually believe that there is
> a single "smoking gun" to be discovered that will, with
> certainty, account for the excess heat as some experimental
> artifact.  Furthmore, even if there is some gross blunder
> involved in the measurements, it may not be possible for
> someone like me remote from the actual measurements to spot
> that smoking gun.  I will say, however, that I have spotted
> a number of gross blunders over the years and called them
> to the attentian of a wide audience of CANR advocates, who
> generally ignore them anyway.

And what would you have us do with the bad data? Some data I agree is
bad and I ignore it, some data we do not agree is bad and I continue to
use it. That is the nature of a difference of opinion. You should not
take it personally.

> What I do believe is a more appropriate description of the
> current state of CANR investigations is that the actual
> precision of the measurements is frequently overstated
> because the cumulative  effects of a number of error
> sources are being overlooked.

This opinion may be true in some cases but I do not agree that
overstated error is the main reason for all the claims. It is an easy
statement to make but very difficult to prove. 

> So I am sure that Ed Storms measured the power input with
> sufficient precision that his errors in that measurement
> do not account for more than a small fraction of the apparent
> excess heat.  However, it is clear that he did not appreciate
> that source of error and evaluate it properly.  I can't
> tell you how significant that is for his measurements.
> When he sought to assure us that his voltage measurements
> are correct, all he mentioned was a comparison to measurements
> made with a digital volt meter -- another instrument that
> does some sort of averaging. If you set the switch to DC,
> that is what it tells you.  It does not determine the "noise
> level" on that signal.  I am sure the signal is noisey, but
> Ed "averaged" the noise away and, I presume, did not record
> it.  Either the signal is not noisey (which I doubt) and
> averaging serves no purpose, or it is noisey and averaging
> introduces an error.  Interestingly enough the calibration
> runs will, in some cases, clearly exhibit different behavior
> with regard to noise so, the calibrations do nothing to
> insure against this source of error.

Let me clear up several points. While at LANL, we examined the voltage
with a scope which showed a small amount of noise.  However, the average
value of the voltage was the same as that measured with the data
acquisition system. Based on that experience, I have not bothered
re-examining the voltage with a scope. The average voltage times the
average current will give the average power. An error occurs if the
measurement of the voltage is not actually the average, being offset
from the correct value by a failure of the meter to follow the noise
signal.  This voltage error would introduce a heat error in the
calorimeter only if the magnitude of this initial voltage error would
change.  Remember, we are measuring relative heat not absolute values.
When calibration is done using electrolytic power, this error and how it
changes with applied power is incorporated into the calibration
constant. For the excess to be explained by this process, the voltage
error would have to change during the successful experiment in a way
that is different from the calibration. I would welcome a suggestion as
to how this can happen. In addition, this change, in my case, would have
to produce a 2 V error in a 12 V signal to explain 4 W of excess power.
Do you really think the error can be this large?

> We can, of course, move through a discussion of several
> other potential error sources, anyone of which is likely
> to be insignificant compared to the level of the excess, but
> one effect of these multiple sources of error is most
> certainly a degrading of the precision of measurement.
> It then becomes crucial that we understand just how the
> precision is estimated and how we may objectively
> evaluate that estimate.

Of course the precision of measurement can be less than expected. All
data in other fields suffer from this complaint, but most are not
rejected outright on this basis.  In my case, I have examined many
samples of platinum and inert palladium. From the data scatter, I can
estimate an expected uncertainty.  Depending on the calorimeter, this
uncertainty falls between 100 and 200 mW.  Therefore, I do not claim
excess energy unless I see at least 500 mW.  Some samples have produced
as much as 7000 mW. In other words, some signals rise out of the noise
by over a factor of 10.  Normally, this would be rather impressive.   
 
> It is to that end that I have attempted to introduce the
> concept of recording a distribution for the results of
> a large number of measurements to see if the actual
> distribution conforms to the statistical model assumed
> for these variable results.  That, of course, won't work
> for the data that appears to show excess heat because,
> it seems, the experimenter has absolutely no control over
> the power level of the device.
> 
> However, the lack of control applies only to those measurements
> that actually result in a CANR effect.  The majority of
> measurements never produce the effect (or so we are told) so
> they make perfect candidates for my proposed statistical
> test.  The challenge is for someone to demonstrate just
> how precisely they can measure zero.  It seems to me unlikely
> that they will be able to measure an excess much more precisely
> than they can measure zero, so we would then have an actual,
> objective measure of the precision rather than their estimate.
> 
> Interestingly enough, when I have raised questions concerning
> the measurement of nothing at all, no one seems ready to address
> the topic.  All those zeroes are consigned to the dust bin
> without being given any further consideration.  That allows
> people to make such obvious errors as asserting that there
> are no negative measurements of excess heat.  A data set
> which has no negative values cannot possible average to
> zero.

The reason no one goes to the trouble of collecting such information is
because no one in the field believes such a large effort would be useful
in unlocking any insights about the phenomenon or convincing skeptics.
In any case, each of us in the field have the same difficulty getting
such data from other workers as does Dick.  However, McKubre has made
his data available, and perhaps Dick would make a contribution by
analyzing this data set for us.  

> As for my "imagining" certain trends in the history of
> claims for excess heat, you will force me to access the
> archives.  I should think that someone who claims to "review"
> the field would not need me to remind him of this history.

I know the history better than most and Dick needs to be reminded that
time is not the only variable operating.
 
> Let's pick on an easy one -- CETI and the Patterson Cell.
> At one point there was a claim that a public demonstration
> unit yielded 1300 Watts.  It was,however, noted that the
> heat exchanger that had to dump  that load to the atmosphere
> was not really adequate for that job.  Then the claimed
> power level dropped to 200 Watts.  Finally, to "confirm"
> the CETI claims Prof. George Miley put his version of the
> device into operation and announced a positive result.
> But postive at what level?  Was it 1300 Watts?  NO.
> Was it 200 Watts? NO.  Was it 10 Watts? NO. Was it
> 1 Watt?  NO.  So if you plot the power level vs. time
> what is the slope for these data?

Granted, the CETI experience has been consistent with a downward trend.
The reason, however, has to do with the difficulty in making active
beads, not with time.  Jim Patterson was able to make batches of beads,
some of which were active and most of which were not.  They used their
rare good beads for some of the demonstrations and for studies within
the company. Eventually they ran out of the good stuff and found that
making new material was much more difficult than their first experience
indicated.  For reasons having to do with internal policies, CETI has
not made more good beads.  On the other hand, Miley has made beads which
produce excess power, but not at the level of the first efforts. This
work is being kept proprietary for patent reasons. 

> Can you find me one example in which the historic trend for
> the claimed level of excess heat is clearly upward?  I
> will find you examples where the trend is clearly downward.

So what?  Success in this field is mixed because we do not know how to
make active material. I'm working on this problem with some success but
it will be a long time before the work can be published or the material
made available to other scientists, thanks to the efforts of skeptics
such as Dick Blue. On the other hand, the Case method and the Stringham
method are both reproducible, and are now, as we speak, making excess
energy. Dick should not assume that just because he is not aware of
success that success does not exist. 
 
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec  4 22:45:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA02707;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:42:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:42:00 -0800
Message-ID: <19981205064129.28065.rocketmail send1b.yahoomail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:41:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Robert  I. Eachus on "Non Thermonuclear " Neutrons from   Deuterium
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"23I_r3.0.9g.uMDQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25195
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Re differentiating nuclear reactions from compound nucleus vs. direct
reactions:

Schaffer:
> >   I think you can see the difference, at least if (3) above occurs
> >"on the fly" as the two nuclei pass each other. If a compound nucleus
> >is formed, as in (4), and if it is spinning, then when it decays
after
> >a random decay time the products fly off at a (nearly) random angle.
> >But if the reaction occurs on the fly, the exit angles of the
products
> >are strictly constrained. The difference could be seen in a cloud
> >chamber or other multidimensional detector.
>  
>   The problem is that net momentum is conserved, and most of these
> experiments are done by targeting thin films with a beam.  So in
either
> case any particles that don't collide with some other atom in the
film go
> "downstream" and the others can come off at any angle.

This is not a problem. It is a typical setup in particle collision
experiments. You ignore the large number of uncollided beam particles
that pass through the thin target. You analyze only the particles that
come out at other angles. These are the interesting products of the
reactions. You need a thin target so that essentially all the products
come out at their full energy, i.e. without products colliding with
the target on their way out.

[snip]
> Now you can use one of the big existing detectors.   But if you go
> that far, watching collision angles is only part of the fun.  I want
to
> find out if there are significant numbers of protons.  In most
experiments,
> the actual numbers of protons are inferred since it is hard to tell a
> proton produced by deuterium fission or fusion from all the random
protons
> from surface contamination. 

That's what modern detectors are for. By analyzing the products in
multiple ways, one deduces their mass, energy, momentum. Ordinary dd
fusion products, e.g. from d contamination on the target, plus their
energies and angle distributions are well known. After they and other
known reactions are identified, what's left is what you are looking
for. This is basically how people search for new particles and their
reactions.

==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 00:41:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA25214;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:40:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:40:17 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b28ea016a6a0 [12.64.37.125]>
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981205043214.01172598 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:36:42 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Is there any law? ( ->Vortex-B )
Resent-Message-ID: <"PVTof2.0.u96.n5FQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25196
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dennis -


 >I was wondering if there was any law against
 >free energy/antigravity devices?
 >
 >
 >Regards;
 >Dennis

IMHO discussions like this, or speculations about ufo's drawing electrons
off wires and so forth really belong on Vortex-B.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 04:27:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA21624;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 04:26:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 04:26:42 -0800
Message-ID: <000f01be2049$d726d3a0$d7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Vacuum Energy Bank?
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 05:21:08 -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: <"M08yr2.0.oH5.2QIQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25197
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The Capacitance (permittivity) of space, eo: 8.85E-12 Farad/meter or
Coulomb/Newton-Meter^2 and the Potential (V)
implies that this is the source of Universal Energy (E)
and charge (+/-)Q.

1, E = 1/2 CV^2 = 1/2Q^2/C = 1/2Q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kQ^2/R

2, Q = CV = Constant = (+/-) 1.602E-19 Coulombs.

3, Force (F) = kQ^2/R^2  (newtons)

4, V = kQ/R    k = 1/4(pi)eo

Then in the Three-Body Electron-Deuteron Interaction:

1, Electron-Deuteron Interaction ---> Neutrino-Antineutrino
internal pair production ---> 2 neutrons and 2.23 Mev "borrowed" from the
Vacuum.

2, Neutron + Proton** ---> Deuteron + 2.23 Mev Photon

**from neutron decay

The Three-Body Proton-Electron-Proton (P-e-P ---> Deuteron + Neutrino)
Reaction can also "Borrow" from the "Bank", but is much less probable than
the e-D ---> 2 Neutron reaction.

Is this part of the ZPE "pump", Hal?

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 05:31:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28620;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 05:30:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 05:30:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981205083111.00836eb0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 08:31:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b28ea016a6a0 [12.64.37.125]>
References: <1.5.4.32.19981205043214.01172598 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"rokad2.0.2_6.VLJQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25198
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




At 10:36 PM 12/4/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
> >I was wondering if there was any law against
> >free energy/antigravity devices?
> >Regards;
> >Dennis
>
>IMHO discussions like this, or speculations about ufo's drawing electrons
>off wires and so forth really belong on Vortex-B.
>- Rick Monteverde


   No, this refers to a science law, is science 
and belongs on vortex-l.

   Conservation of energy disputes "free energy"
although cold fusion is NOT "free energy" as it takes
its energy source from E=mc2 and loss of mass of the
system.
   
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 08:38:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07493;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:36:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:36:36 -0800
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 09:35:30 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Is there any law?
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199812051636.JAA11745 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: <"NpVwI.0._q1.K4MQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25199
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 05:30:07 -0800
>X-Sender: mica world.std.com

>
>At 10:36 PM 12/4/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>> >I was wondering if there was any law against
>> >free energy/antigravity devices?
>> >Regards;
>> >Dennis
>>
>>IMHO discussions like this, or speculations about ufo's drawing electrons
>>off wires and so forth really belong on Vortex-B.
>>- Rick Monteverde
>
>
>   No, this refers to a science law, is science 
>and belongs on vortex-l.
>
>   Conservation of energy disputes "free energy"
>although cold fusion is NOT "free energy" as it takes
>its energy source from E=mc2 and loss of mass of the
>system.
>   
>   Mitchell Swartz
>

I could most certainly be wrong on this, but my feeling is that Dennis is
asking whether these devices are illegal, not whether they violate some
scientific principle (law). Maybe Dennis could clarify the question.

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 08:59:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11013;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:58:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:58:08 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981205115906.007df5d0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 11:59:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Is there any law?
In-Reply-To: <199812051636.JAA11745 smtp2.asu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eaCGL1.0._h2.WOMQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25200
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:35 AM 12/5/98 -0700, Lynn Kurtz wrote:
>I could most certainly be wrong on this, but my feeling is that Dennis is
>asking whether these devices are illegal, not whether they violate some
>scientific principle (law). Maybe Dennis could clarify the question.
>
>--Lynn


  Oh darn.  I thought it was science, but it may
have been politics.  Thanks Lynn.

   Mitchell


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 09:14:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA14432;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:12:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:12:19 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981205121933.00c473a0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:19:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hp0qD.0.QX3.obMQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25201
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:31 AM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:36 PM 12/4/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>> >I was wondering if there was any law against
>> >free energy/antigravity devices?
>> >Regards;
>> >Dennis
>>
>>IMHO discussions like this, or speculations about ufo's drawing electrons
>>off wires and so forth really belong on Vortex-B.
>>- Rick Monteverde
>
>
>   No, this refers to a science law, is science 
>and belongs on vortex-l.
>
>   Conservation of energy disputes "free energy"
>although cold fusion is NOT "free energy" as it takes
>its energy source from E=mc2 and loss of mass of the
>system.
>   
>   Mitchell Swartz
>

I agree with Rick on this, I believe what's being referred
to here is the legal code and not the scientific. Having said
this, the only laws applicable would be those of the patent
law referring to national security. To wit; if you patent
an invention which affects national security interests,
the patent can be denied and a gag order executed against the
applicant. See

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/181.shtml

for the relevant code.

Please, take this to VB.

K.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 12:03:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25469;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 12:02:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 12:02:53 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130500b28f4d10da26 [38.14.54.102]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 15:12:35 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Newman motor principles operation, a new way to explain it...
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA25448
Resent-Message-ID: <"28rKS1.0.pD6.j5PQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25202
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 19:42:20 +0100
From: Stefan Hartmann
Subject: Newman motor principles operation, a new way to explain it...

Hi All,

My experiment on Friday 4th of Dec. 1998 have brought me to a new
understanding of the Newman motor priniciple.

1. It seems the negative current spikes are scope artifacts, but there are
BIG current spikes, but they are in the positive direction and come from
the coil! So they help the magnet rotation and acceleration!

Why ?
a) a normal amperemeter just shows a positive input current, although I had
on the scope only negative current displayed in one experiment with 2 spark
gaps in series !

If I would have to calculate the RMS value of the input current due to the
scope reading, it would be a total RMS of NEGATIVE input current. But the
amperemeter in series, just shows a POSITIVE current value.... If there
would be really this amount of negative current, then also the amperemeter
would show a negative reading!  But it is positive all the time!

It seems this is really an artifact of the scope input, that at higher
scope gain settings, the RF bursts which represent the output of the coil
just overload the scope and also the floating ground , so that RF bursts
are somehow rectified and displayed as negative current only inside the
scope... instead as in lower gain settings as positive RF bursts only...

b) I came to this upper conclusion by doing an experiment with the water
bath as the on-off switch for the curent inside the Newman coil:

When pulling one electrode out of the water, I had a noiseful arc going
from the electrode down to the water surface.  Then there is on the scope
just a short positive big current spike! About a few 10 mikroseconds long.
No RF bursts! No negative current spikes!

I guess this is simular to what really happens inside the commutator of the
Newman motor.

c) touching and feeling the torque onto the magnet rotor inside the coil
shows NO NEGATIVE torque, when this negative current scope spike occurs!
This is very important!! It seems just to accelerate the rotor into the
positive direction.
You can feel, that there is a big positive torque generated, when the arc
appears at the commutator!

This is why Jean Louis Naudin had a faster spinning rotor, when he used
"much negative current scope spikes" in his commutator setup.

NORMALLY THESE NEGATIVE CURRENT PULSES SHOULD HAVE SLOWED DOWN THE ROTOR SPEED!

My conclusions are now:

1. A Newman coil current can jump to big values, which normal coils can´t do.

2. When the commutator opens the coil, the coil voltage goes extremely high
until the arc is building up. This represenst a negative resistance and
thus the stored energy of the magnetic field inside the coil and also the
stored capacitance energy of the coil is "flushed" in one instance creating
a very big positive current pulse, which the scope shows as an artifact as
negative current spike. Indeed this current spike also produces a big
magnetic H field inside the coil, which accelerates the magnet rotor.  So
Jean Louis could measure more mechanical out than electrical in.

3. It seems one really needs a magnet rotor inside the coil and thus build
it as a motor to get this magnet acceleration effect and to get mechanical
overunity.
The dc component of the RF burst seems to accelerate the magnet rotor and
produce the overunity output power. Also the RF bursts flow back to the
batteries and make them last much longer, which Newman explained as "back
charging".

This is also why Newman never could show running the machine on a charged
capacitor bank. It is just an RF current with a positive DC component, but
not a real negative current...

4. When I have put 2 spark gaps in series to switch the coil, I realized,
that I could get better and longer "negative current scope spikes", so the
new commutator design of Newman with several switches in series is a good
way to achieve an even higher mechanical output, by making the RF burst
current spikes bigger and longer !

5. AquaFuel production verifies that big current pulses are produced by the
coil and thus these big current pulses accelerate the rotor inside the
coil.

So much for today.

I hope you can now better understand the technology.

Regards, Stefan.


--
Hartmann Multimedia Service,  Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann
Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497  FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498
email: harti harti.com  Web site: http://www.harti.com
http://ccard.net fuer Ihren Verkauf im WEB !


__________________________________

Because of a number of important insights described by Stefan, I wanted to
post this on Vortex; these descriptions may be helpful to others working in
the field.

Regards,

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 13:41:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17672;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:40:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:40:27 -0800
Message-ID: <002d01be2097$30649040$d7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: A Light Neutron-Neutron Set from a Electron-Deuteron Interaction?
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:34:51 -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: <"mq3cs1.0.2K4.BXQQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25203
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A possible way to get a conservative interaction between an Electron and a
Deuteron:

1, Electron + Deuteron ---> oD2 + energy

2, oD2 ---> (1.00543 AMU,"Light Neutron", n' )+ Neutrino
+ neutron (1.008665 AMU).

The "Light Neutron" (n') can then react with a heavier element giving off
energy:

n' + Pd105 ---> Pd106 + 7.0 Mev, or He4 + Ru102 + 3.57 Mev.

Regards,   Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 17:42:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03692;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3669DF7E.F4C513E5 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 14:35:59 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net
Subject: G force
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gYFx31.0.Yv.X2UQs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25204
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: A

AG devices are meant to free the mass from gravitational fields but here
is an important question, Unless you can to tune to the G field you want
to repel of it will work on all G fields, So if something
indiscriminately gets rid of all G fields what will be the result?
What is the G force the sun gives the earth?
I have never heard that answered and I have no clue if it's more or less
than 1G.
Further what is the rest of the galaxy and universe exerting? Will an AG
device cancel G fields larger than the earths 1G?

John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 18:30:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29630;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:29:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:29:08 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:29:06 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: energy storage caps
In-Reply-To: <3669DF7E.F4C513E5 ihug.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981205182239.11713F-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zv3VB.0.uE7.qlUQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25205
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


See below.  I don't know this person, so excercise normal caution.  His
capacitors perhaps are similar to the Sangamo 2uF castor oil HV caps being
advertized here: http://www.73.com/a/0031.shtml

As usual, if you don't feel 100% confident with HV safety procedures,
don't mess with big capacitors; you won't survive your first mistake. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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


Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:41:27 -0500
From: Shebalin <jsho6 pilot.infi.net>
To: billb eskimo.com

Bill,
    I have some Sangamo energy discharge capacitors for sale cheap.  Know
anyone who needs some.  These hold over 3kJ per capacitor and are rated at
60kV. 

JP



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 18:41:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32142;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:37:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:37:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3669EE18.5312 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 19:38:17 -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: Hansen: Storms: recombination artifact  12.5.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MugHA1.0.8s7.vtUQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25206
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Storms: Hansen: Shanahan: recombination artifact 12.4.98 -Reply
  Date:  Sat, 05 Dec 1998 10:49:59 -0700
  From:  "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

[Comments from Lee Hansen]

>>> Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net> 12/04/98 10:23pm >>>
Subject:  Re: Hansen: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 12.4.98
       Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 14:43:20 +0000
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net

>Reply to Lee Hansen by Ed Storms

> Subject: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact 11.25.98 Reply
>   Date:  Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:14:54 -0700
>   From:  "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
>     To:   rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> [Comments from Lee Hansen]
> 
> Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.24.98
>       Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
>       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms
> 
> Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to
> be talking past each other.  Certain facts exist which are not a matter
> of debate.  If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts
> must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.
> 
> To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we
> stand.
> 
> 1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
> location for recombination within the cell. This change produces a
> change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This
> model depends on several assumptions:
> 
> Recombination does not have to be the only "excess" heat source to
> consider. If the power distribution in the cell changes for any reason,
> then the effects Kirk talks about may become important.
> 
> 1. The location for recombination can change.
> 2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.
> 
> These assumptions are answered by the following facts:
> 
> I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
> current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
> important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
> experimental fact.
> 
> [Not necessarily. It depends on the catalytic nature of the electrode
> surface. Nobody knows how efficient PdHx is at catalyzing the reduction
> of oxygen.]

>As I recall, you were a co-author on a paper by Steve Jones which
>purported to measure recombination caused by PdH, and from this study
>the authors concluded that all of the published excess heat >measurements
>could be explained by unrecognized recombination. Do you remember this
>work and wish to change your statement or the conclusion reached in the
>paper?

[What we said in that paper was "We will not attempt to prove that all
observations of excess heat are due to either a reduced faradaic
efficiency or experimental error. Evaluating all reports of excess heat
in sufficient detail would, in fact, be impossible because critical
information is missing from the published reports. Furthermore, the
burden of providing adequate evidence that the reactions of H2 and O2,
or calorimetric errors, are not the source of reported excess heat rests
on the experimenters. The results reported in this paper support the
hypothesis that reaction 4 can explain most available reports to date of
excess heat in both Pd/LiOD(D2O)/Pt and Ni/K2CO3(aq)/Pt cells when
running at low current densities."]

[I stand by that statement. The study only examined reactions at low
current density. I do not know what x was in the PdHx, but it must have
been small. Nobody knows what the exchange current is on PdHx at the x
values obtained at high current density such as in your studies.]

> I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
> cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
> the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.
> 
> [How do you know this "fact"? If the solution is stirred sufficiently to
> guarantee thermal homogeneity, you cannot avoid mixing oxygen into the
> solution at the cathode.]

>Yes, stirring does cause mixing, but as anyone who has looked into a
cell knows, most of the bubbles circulate well away from the cathode and
gradually rise to the surface.  Because my cathode is surrounded by a
mesh of Pt, at least one half of the oxygen stays outside of this cage
and is completely unavailable to the cathode. The remainder within the
cage rise quickly to the surface, because stirring does not reach this
region, and the convection currents are down at the wall and up at the
center where the cathode is located.

[If the solution is not well stirred at the cathode, except by
convection currents, then there must be large temperature gradients in
the cell, and because they rely on the assumption that the temperature
represents the average in the liquid, the calorimetric results cannot be
correct. Also, temperature gradients at the cathode which change with
stirring will cause different heat losses through the cathode leads that
are dependent on the cell conditions. Since you use the electrolysis
reaction to calibrate the system, it is subject to the same conditions
as a joule heater -- all the heat generated must enter the solution, not
be lost up the lead wires. Is this the source of the supposed excess
heat?]

> I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
> recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
> an experimental fact.
> 
> [Again, how do you know? The only way to know would be to cement a
> heater to the recombiner and test the accuracy of your statement with
> power similar to that developed by the reaction. Unless the heat loss
> path from the recombiner is the same as that from the solution, your
> statement cannot be true.
> Although I have never operated one, I have been told that recombiners
> have the tricky habit of cycling on and off. How would that affect your
> measurement?]

>When calibration is done by Joule heating, no heat is released at the
recombiner.  When the same calibration is done by applying electrolytic
current, the recombiner becomes hot. In spite of this difference in
temperature, the calibrations constants are the same. Recombiners do not
have a tricky habit as you describe. In my case, I use an external
recombiner in which a thermistor is located.  Any failure of the
internal recombiner is noticed as an increase in temperature of the
external recombiner.

[How does the heat get from the recombiner to the solution? What are the
heat transfer paths from the recombiner to the outside? Where exactly
are the joule heater, electrodes, and recombiner located with respect to
each other? What are the materials, diameters, and lengths of the lead
wires? As I understand it you run a magnetic stirrer during heater
calibration, but not during electrolysis. How do you account for the
energy input from stirring?]
 
> >From these facts I conclude that:
> 
> 1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.
> 2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
> purpose, is also small.
> 
> Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
> can explain excess energy.
> 
> [Little or no experimental evidence exists to show that they don't. That
> is the real problem.]

>The real problem is that you do not know the experimental evidence which
exists.

[How can I get it?]

> You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact.
> 
> You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general
> statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.
> 
> [That none of us know the answer to.]

>Not an exact answer but a good guess can be made using your own
experience.

[No, because I have never run at high current density. I suspect that
PdHx with x values near saturation may be a very good catalyst for
recombination, but I do not know of any measurements of this property.
It would certainly explain a lot of things if there were a critical x
value above which recombination (actually the reaction of O2 at the
cathode) suddenly became much faster.]

 
> You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss
> of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an
> assumption.
> 
> (Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area
> exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater
> effect.)
> 
> [The principle is still the same. There are several heat loss paths from
> your calorimeter of varying thermal conductivity. Changing the location
> of the heat source can potentially alter the ratio of losses through
> these paths, and that changes the apparent calibration constant.]

>Of course, the potential is present but an experimental test, as
described above, does not show the effect you propose.
 
> >From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct.
> You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.
> 
> [How would you propose we obtain those facts? You must do the
> experiments, since it is your equipment and you are making the claims
> that must be supported.]

>An error is being proposed based on known physical processes. To make a
case, you would have to show that sufficient oxygen was available to the
cathode to cause a marked change in the location of heat production.  A
good guess could be made, and I suggest that at most 10% of the oxygen
could be recombined at the cathode under the best of conditions. This
would cause a shift of power of 350 mW at the highest current. Would you
expect this shift to cause 4 W of apparent excess energy?  I leave it to
you to carry the analysis to the next step with this example as a guide.

>It makes no sense to suggest errors just because you can imagine them,
and then, in the face of experimental evidence and simple calculations 
to the contrary, insist they exist.  Give me a break and admit that some
of your suggestions may not be important.
 
[Most of my suggestions are probably not important, but how do I know if
I don't ask?]

> I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location
> of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any
> book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his
> comments.)
> 
> [That is not a fact and cannot be verified by any of the books I know
> of. The only design that would come close is one in which the experiment
> is completely enclosed by the calorimeter vessel. Any connection to the
> outside (wires, etc.) would not be allowed. Also, the heat distribution
> within the calorimeter vessel during calibration must approximate that
> during an experiment. There is no design that gets completely away from
> that requirement, not matter how you do the measurement. Some designs
> are obviously more sensitive to the problem than others. It is not
> usually discussed in the literature, because it is assumed that
> everybody knows it. Furthermore, the problem gets worse as the power
> gets larger, because temperature gradients get larger. Until cold fusion
> only rarely had anyone worried about or attempted any calorimetry at
> such high powers.]

>I thought you had a background in calorimetry.  I'm sorry if I was
mistaken.

[Accepted as an insult.]

> The calorimeters I described

[I do not know what calorimeters you are talking about. There are
hundreds if not thousands of different designs.]

> are designed to reduce the effect
of internal gradients and succeed well enough to be accepted by many
other fields requiring accurate heat measurement.  As for the leads, the
calorimeter is placed in an environment which is at the same temperature
as the interior. Therefore, no heat can pass through the leads. 

[I thought you were making measurements based on the heat conduction
principle. If the inside and outside are kept at the same temperature
how do you make the measurement?]

> Power
is applied to the interior and this power is adjusted to keep the
interior temperature constant as the studied reactions release heat.

[Alright, so it is a power compensation calorimeter. Inside and outside
are the same temperature, except during transients. Heat measurements by
power compensation are subject to the same errors from gradients as are
heat conduction measurements. If the gradients change they can affect
the temperature sensor or the ratio of heat loss through the walls and
the lead wires. And those cause errors. I will reiterate -- the only way
to prove a calorimeter is working properly is to run a known reaction
that closely duplicates the unknown process.]


>This is the method McKubre used.  I suggest you read his papers.

>I think you will find that bomb calorimetry, on which much accepted
thermodynamic data are based, uses such high powers.

[Bomb calorimetry is not based on measurement of power, but of total
temperature rise over relatively short period of time. It is an integral
method, not a differential method. Flame calorimetry might be more
comparable. Note that I did not say it had never been done. I just said
it was not easy.]

> I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy
> production.  This is an experimental fact.
> 
> [As I have asked before, you must reference such statements so we know
> what experiment you are referring to.]

>Please read my reviews for such references.

[See request below. And, I did read your review about a year ago. It
contained several references to work that is known to be incorrect. Have
you removed those yet?]

> >From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general
> application.
> 
> [You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the
> location of heat production.]

>I do not know what this statement means.

 [I don't either. I didn't make it. Rich Murray put it in brackets
because I forgot to do so in my message.]

> >From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected
> by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any
> experimental evidence.
> 
> -----
> 
> You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured.
> This in a myth.  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by
> some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry.
> However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles,
> Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my
> reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout
> the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of
> palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.
> 
> -----
> [The calorimetry that Miles has published is certainly dubious at best.
> Your calorimeter has not been adequately tested. And McKubre as near as
> I can tell does not see any excess heat.]
> 
> If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me
> your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.
> 
> [My evidence is that your evidence is incomplete.]

>In other words, you can make any crazy suggestion to reject the claims
which I must then refute with evidence. You have no responsibility in
this regard. This approach is much like politics rather than in science.

[Yes, I feel free to make any suggestion I like. You are free to say
they are crazy if you like. But until you prove that your calorimeter
makes accurate measurements, you do not have the evidence for any new
phenomenon.]

> Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general world.
> These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well
> understood phenomenon. If we can not agree on some of the basic facts,
> then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes
> hopeless.  This is the basic problem I'm having with Rich and Dick as
> well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is
> pointless.  It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a
> client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for
> the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the
> latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.
> 
> I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some
> papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the
> discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth
> remembering with joy.=
> 
> [I agree that cooperation and trust of people is necessary for science
> to proceed, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not and
> how far to trust the instruments and the results they produce. You have
> far more faith in your calorimeter than I do. Long experience has taught
> me to mistrust any calorimetric measurement until it has been verified
> in several ways by different workers. And just repeating the mistakes of
> previous workers does not count. You need to listen carefully to
> suggestions made by others of potential errors and not reject them quite
> so readily. You also need to be more skeptical of your own results. If
> not you are inevitably going to end up vigorously defending bad data.]

>You presume I have not examined any of the potential errors and that I
have heard the various suggestions for the first time.  You further
assume that I am not skeptical of my results.  I am very skeptical, but
after this skepticism has been satisfied by repeated error checking and
repeated positive results, I accept the data.  This approach is in
direct contrast to other "skeptics".  I can appreciate that many people
have not spent as much time as I have in analyzing data and have not
seen the apparatus.  Reasonable questions and suggestions are expected. 
However, I also expect that when these questions are answered, we agree
about what is happening and move on. In contrast, no quarter is given in
these discussions, even to admit the truth of the most obvious
statements on my part. If you or any one else can suggest a source of
error I have overlooked, I would be most happy to check the data and, if
you are found to be correct, renounce my claims.

Ed Storms

[Lee Hansen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 19:54:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08966;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 19:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 19:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:44:35 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: "M.Twain" <muse ethos.co.nz>
cc: Aether1004 <muse ethos.co.nz>, Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: New Life, Once Again ...
In-Reply-To: <3669FCA5.12EA ethos.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981205224354.13655E-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"idPvV.0.0C2.P-VQs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25207
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Did you finally ever find any WORKING free energy methods?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec  5 23:35:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA04735;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 23:34:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 23:34:05 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130303b28fdcc00d44 [12.64.37.125]>
In-Reply-To: <3669DF7E.F4C513E5 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 21:25:50 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: G force
Resent-Message-ID: <"uG22N2.0.i91.jDZQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25208
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John -

Please don't CC more than one list. It's in Bill B's rules. Your note
appeared on both freenrg and vortex.

  > [...] if something indiscriminately gets rid of all G fields
  >  what will be the result?

I don't think science is all that certain about just exactly what gravity
is or if you can "tune" to different fields as you suggest in your post, so
it would be somewhat speculative to describe what a hypothetical shielding
would or should do. It could even turn out that such shielding really isn't
possible, as conventional thought currently holds.

   >  What is the G force the sun gives the earth? I have
   >  never heard that answered and I have no clue if it's
   >  more or less than 1G.

The temptation I feel to suggest that you do a bare *minimum* of
investigation of this question in a basic physics text or online phisics
web page is too much to resist. Makes me feel like I'm being rude or
conceited or something. But I'm pretty sure it would do you some good, and
you would learn something useful along the way.

Ok, here's a hint: look up the mass of the earth, the mass of the sun, and
the distance between them. Find the formula for the gravitational force
between two objects in a basic physics text or web page. Then do the math.
This might then even inspire you to calculate what force (or how many g's)
you would feel on your body from the sun alone at the distance of the earth
without the earth being nearby. Or if you were near the sun's surface.
Physics can be phun; enjoy it.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 00:12:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA11245;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:11:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:11:00 -0800
Message-ID: <366A3B00.230DCEE4 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 21:06:25 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: G force
References: <l03130303b28fdcc00d44 [12.64.37.125]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"U6LYO3.0.dl2.JmZQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25209
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Rick Monteverde wrote:

> John -
>
> Please don't CC more than one list. It's in Bill B's rules. Your note
> appeared on both freenrg and vortex.

I know I just got lazy, I should have sent three different emails, I did not CC
but don't know how to get my mail software to suppress the other addresses.

>
>
>   > [...] if something indiscriminately gets rid of all G fields
>   >  what will be the result?
>
> I don't think science is all that certain about just exactly what gravity
> is or if you can "tune" to different fields as you suggest in your post, so
> it would be somewhat speculative to describe what a hypothetical shielding
> would or should do. It could even turn out that such shielding really isn't
> possible, as conventional thought currently holds.
>
>    >  What is the G force the sun gives the earth? I have
>    >  never heard that answered and I have no clue if it's
>    >  more or less than 1G.
>
> The temptation I feel to suggest that you do a bare *minimum* of
> investigation of this question in a basic physics text or online phisics
> web page is too much to resist. Makes me feel like I'm being rude or
> conceited or something. But I'm pretty sure it would do you some good, and
> you would learn something useful along the way.
>
> Ok, here's a hint: look up the mass of the earth, the mass of the sun, and
> the distance between them. Find the formula for the gravitational force
> between two objects in a basic physics text or web page. Then do the math.
> This might then even inspire you to calculate what force (or how many g's)
> you would feel on your body from the sun alone at the distance of the earth
> without the earth being nearby. Or if you were near the sun's surface.
> Physics can be phun; enjoy it.

I have done a reasonable study of physics but have not done math's or astronomy
(or chemistry ugh) the two things I need to answer this question, the most
simple way may be to calculate the centrifugal force that should be placed on a
mass at such distance at one rotation/orbit around the sun per year but I can't
even work this out with my lack of mathematical skill, If you don't know the
answer or are reluctant to calculate it then that is fine but I am unable to do
it my self.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 00:41:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA15923;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:40:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:40:09 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981206084719.011b0cf4 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, 06 Dec 1998 03:47:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
Resent-Message-ID: <"zzBbE3.0.iu3.fBaQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25210
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 08:31 AM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote:

(snip)

>   Conservation of energy disputes "free energy"
>although cold fusion is NOT "free energy" as it takes
>its energy source from E=mc2 and loss of mass of the
>system.

(snip)

I recently read a mention that they have not yet figured a way of separating
the hydrogen molecule to atoms and measuring the energy required to have
this dissociation mechanism to occur. The methodology actually used is to
observe the recombination of two hydrogen atoms and spectroscopically
measure the energy released. It is then assumed that this recombination
energy is the dissociation energy with the change of + to - sign of this
measured recombination energy. If this CF excess energy is in part, energy
derived from the dissociation/recombination cycle, then a ZPE interaction is
indicated. To be literal, conservation of energy is not violated in 'free
energy' design theory. It takes many months of studying the 'homework' to
get a comfortable understanding of where this 'free energy' is coming from.

Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 04:08:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA04821;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:01:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:01:23 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <366A64C1.1B9E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 03:04:33 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortexb-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: LW....Re: Low frequency stuff
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981205223645.13655D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"joN_E2.0.DB1.I8dQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25211
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 6, 1998

Vortex, (L and B)

VLF to ELF electromagnetic radiation (also at other frequencies)
detection of all material undergoing any change is clearly indicated.
The very fact of a 'receiver' detecting these radiations points to this.

The questions that arise from this are:

1. What is the spectrum of those radiation in different actions, whether
they be physical, chemical, electrical, nuclear, and some combination of
these?

2. To what extent do radiation values have to be be accounted for in
balancing energy equations?

3. Are these values smothered and lost by larger macro values?

4. If so, how can they be detected?

5. To what extent has the radiation spectrum been detected for the
varied actions? 

Also years before the VLF interest (pre-draft age), I noticed that
substitute rubber bands used for model pulley belts stretched out of
shape pretty fast. I thought the stretching pulley action involved some
kind of molecular changes on the bands, even temporarily. And molecular
changes involved shifting electrical charges. Ergo, there might be
somthing electrical floating around the moving, stretching rubber bands.
The upshot of this was to place an open audio pre-amp input cable
(always sensitive to pick up hum) close to a running rubber band. Sure
enough, some kind of radiation was detected, in audio, by the cable. It
was electrical noise coming from the rubber, reflecting the speed of the
stretch and contraction. I was satisfied. I didn't go furthur to see if
the radiation was of a particular type or expand the experiment.

-AK-

John Schnurer wrote:
>LW
>Dear Vo.,
>The area from 30 cps to 15,000 cps is VERY interesting.... with a
>very good front end one can hear the field [in radio land] .. at about >150 to 250 cps emitted by a bees wings as it flies by.... you can hear >the field, a 'hissing' of car tires ..... if you shout loundly at a >piece of aluminum foil [don't get too clo
se!] carrying a low current >200 to 500 volts you can hear speech modulation ...
>         AND:
> insulated wire in the wind
> fan blades
> windshield wipers
> dawn chorus
> lightning
> fair weather currents
>         and much more...
> walking on cold dry snow
> fly swatter in dry air
> ... a lot of human made emissions...

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 05:52:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA22779;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 05:51:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 05:51:38 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be211f$34809f60$7149ccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's nuclear battery
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 20:05:30 -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: <"OCqSw.0.mZ5.gleQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25212
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>Hi;
>
>
>At 08:37 AM 12/4/98 -1000, you wrote:
>
>>   >  He says that the performance of a transformer can be
>>   >  greatly impaired by completely shielding the
>>   >  secondary with a good conductor of electricity such as
>>   >  copper or pure aluminum. The shield impedes the flow
>>   >  of particles to the secondary.
>>
>>Does he also say to what extent magnetically produced eddy currents in the
>>shield contribute to the impairment?
>
>
>I believe eddy current losses only occur in magnetic materials.
>
>
>Regards;
>Dennis


Mitchell Swartz said "nope" and I second the motion. Eddy currents  are
induced in any conducting body by time-changing magnetic fields, and operate
to oppose those fields. In a transformer, total shielding by either winding
by a copper or aluminum shell is the same as introducing a new winding which
is short circuited. Not only will this inhibit flux from entering the
secondary, it will produce a heavy load on the primary. The extreme case is
the Meissner effect, where circulating currents in a superconducting body
expel magnetic fields and will cause a permanent magnet to float above a
superconducting disc.

There are instances in transformer construction where the windings are
enclosed in copper or aluminum foils, which operate as electrostatic shields
to prevent stray couplings. In these cases care is taken *not* to create
closed circuits around the windings.

Mike Carrell


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 07:23:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA13416;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:22:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:22:13 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981206092252.009bbb20 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:22:52 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981206084719.011b0cf4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xPHca3.0.YH3.b4gQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25213
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:47 AM 12/6/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>I recently read a mention that they have not yet figured a way of separating
>the hydrogen molecule to atoms and measuring the energy required to have
>this dissociation mechanism to occur.

Your reference was wrong.  Many researchers (starting with Beutler in ~1935
and including the famous Herzberg) have measured the dissociation energy of
hydrogen molecules by dissociating them with extreme UV radiation around 86
nm wavelength.  Such photons have 14.7 eV of energy which is sufficient to
separate the H2 molecule into one ground-state H atom and one H atom in the
first excited electronic state (10.2 eV above the ground state).  The
difference, 4.5 eV, is the dissociation energy of the hydrogen molecule.


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 Dec  6 07:31:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA18274;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:29:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:29:57 -0800
Message-ID: <366ABE35.72F8D346 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:26:13 -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: G force
References: <l03130303b28fdcc00d44 [12.64.37.125]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GdISm3.0.OT4.rBgQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25214
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:

> It could even turn out that such shielding really isn't
> possible, as conventional thought currently holds.

Oh, I doubt it will turn out that way. Somehow, I think G-"shielding" is
quite possible...I don't really know if it is shielding, but probably
some form of a field that lessens the gravitational field in it area.
See the theories of Li and Torr.

Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 07:58:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26207;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:57:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 07:57:24 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981206095753.009bed90 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:57:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <l03130303b28fdcc00d44 [12.64.37.125]>
References: <3669DF7E.F4C513E5 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"osX75.0.PP6.ZbgQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25215
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:25 PM 12/5/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>Physics can be phun; enjoy it.

Indeed!  I get the sun's gravitational force, here at Earth orbit, to be
6E-4 of Earth's gravitational force here at Earth surface!  This is an
easily measurable amount!  For example, a 100 gram object should weigh 120
milligrams LESS at noon when the sun is at zenith than it does at midnight
when the sun is at nadir.  Something seems wrong, here....how can people
weigh things precisely with such large diurnal variations going on?  Then
again, we DO have tides... Hey!, the moon's gravitational force here at
Earth surface is about 2.2  times greater than that of the Sun...so there
will be even bigger monthly weight variations...

I guess I'll just have to perform this measurement and report back here.


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 Dec  6 12:17:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27793;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:16:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:16:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981206141638.009ba2c0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 14:16:38 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981206095753.009bed90 mail.eden.com>
References: <l03130303b28fdcc00d44 [12.64.37.125]>
 <3669DF7E.F4C513E5 ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DbaJ2.0.Bo6.0OkQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25216
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


I still get the sun's gravitational force, here at Earth orbit, to be
6E-4g....but now I get the moon's pull here at Earth surface to be
3.4E-6g...180 times smaller!

That conflicts with a tide article I quoted earlier which says that "at the
surface of the Earth the gravitational force of the Moon is about 2.2 times
greather than that of the Sun."

Something's wrong...I know the moon is the bigger factor in our tides.

I'm using:
Msun = 1.99E30 kg
Distance earth-sun = 1.49E8 km
Mmoon = 7.3E22 kg
Distance earth-moon = 3.84E5 km

Help!


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 Dec  6 13:41:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15592;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:39:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:39:25 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199812062139.PAA26775 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981206141638.009ba2c0 mail.eden.com> from Scott Little at "Dec 6, 98 02:16:38 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:39:23 -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: <"RpFCk1.0.Xp3.CclQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25217
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little writes:
> I still get the sun's gravitational force, here at Earth orbit, to be
> 6E-4g....but now I get the moon's pull here at Earth surface to be
> 3.4E-6g...180 times smaller!
> 
> That conflicts with a tide article I quoted earlier which says that "at the
> surface of the Earth the gravitational force of the Moon is about 2.2 times
> greather than that of the Sun."
> 
> Something's wrong...I know the moon is the bigger factor in our tides.
> 
> I'm using:
> Msun = 1.99E30 kg
> Distance earth-sun = 1.49E8 km
> Mmoon = 7.3E22 kg
> Distance earth-moon = 3.84E5 km
> 
> Help!

I think the gravitation field of the sun may indeed be stronger here
than that of the moon -- but I don't think it is strength of field
alone that translates into magnitude of tidal effects.

Remember, we are in freefall around the sun (or very nearly.)  If we
were point sized objects, there would be no difference at all in being
oriented up, down or sideways.  But the earth's surface is no longer
a point object, so some points are closer to the sun and some are
farther.  That ought to give a delta across the field, with different
orbital velocities, causing a bit of "tidal" stuff to go on.

Now we are much closer to the moon than the sun, so the change in
the moon's field across the earth's dimension ought to be a much
greater percentage than that of the sun's field.

So off the top of my head, let's check the numbers --

You say the moon G field is 180 times less.  Yet the distance ratio
is 388 closer.  388/180 = 2.15.  Maybe just a coincidence, but pretty
close to your 2.2 figure.


-- 
 - 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 Dec  6 14:10:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26337;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:05:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:05:44 -0800
Message-ID: <00a001be2163$e0f0a9e0$d7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott's G Whiz Problem
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:00:28 -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: <"Tw_-T.0.MR6.t-lQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25218
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

"The Tide-Generating Force is proportional to the mass of the disturbing
body (moon) and the inverse cube of it's separation".

"if the moon attracted every point within the Earth with equal force, there
would be no tide".

Hope this helps.    The equation for the force and a sketch will cost you
extra. :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 14:19:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29254;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:12:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:12:11 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b290b03bb174 [12.64.37.125]>
In-Reply-To: <199812062139.PAA26775 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981206141638.009ba2c0 mail.eden.com> from Scott
 Little at "Dec 6, 98 02:16:38 pm"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:08:31 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: G force
Resent-Message-ID: <"osbN93.0.w87.x4mQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25219
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John & Scott -

[JL] >  I think the gravitation field of the sun may indeed be
     >  stronger here than that of the moon -- but I don't
     >  think it is strength of field alone that translates into
     >  magnitude of tidal effects.

I think John is right, the "2.2 times" statement must be either or both of
a mistatement or misquote, and what is meant is that the moon has 2.2 times
the tidal effect that the sun has.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 14:41:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06477;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:38:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:38:32 -0800
Message-ID: <00ad01be2168$73fb0a60$d7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: G force
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:33:26 -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: <"bpOQt1.0.7b1.dTmQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25220
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: Sunday, December 06, 1998 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: G force

Rick wrote:


>John & Scott -
>
>[JL] >  I think the gravitation field of the sun may indeed be
>     >  stronger here than that of the moon -- but I don't
>     >  think it is strength of field alone that translates into
>     >  magnitude of tidal effects.
>
>I think John is right, the "2.2 times" statement must be either or both of
>a mistatement or misquote, and what is meant is that the moon has 2.2 times
>the tidal effect that the sun has.

"The tide-generating arise from the gravitational action of sun and moon,the
effect of the moon being about twice as effective as that of the sun in
producing tides."

By golly I think I'll start studing astrology. :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 16:41:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06958;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:38:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:38:45 -0800
Message-ID: <366B2278.7A45BE4A ihug.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:34:00 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: G force
References: <199812062139.PAA26775 mirage.skypoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YmISI1.0.di1.KEoQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25221
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was talking about how much of the sun's gravity reaches earth, Not about tides.

What percentage of the sun's gravity reaches earth (as if we stopped orbiting the
sun so we could feel the full force) not what is left after the opposing
centrifugal force.
I don't know enough about math to even know what 6E-4g means though it seems like
an approximate.
Is it .0006 of earths gravity? (sounds like it's less than 1G though)
An alternate question is what is the centrifugal force placed on the earth by
orbiting at the speed and velocity it is.

John Logajan wrote:

> Scott Little writes:
> > I still get the sun's gravitational force, here at Earth orbit, to be
> > 6E-4g....but now I get the moon's pull here at Earth surface to be
> > 3.4E-6g...180 times smaller!
> >
> > That conflicts with a tide article I quoted earlier which says that "at the
> > surface of the Earth the gravitational force of the Moon is about 2.2 times
> > greather than that of the Sun."
> >
> > Something's wrong...I know the moon is the bigger factor in our tides.
> >
> > I'm using:
> > Msun = 1.99E30 kg
> > Distance earth-sun = 1.49E8 km
> > Mmoon = 7.3E22 kg
> > Distance earth-moon = 3.84E5 km
> >
> > Help!
>
> I think the gravitation field of the sun may indeed be stronger here
> than that of the moon -- but I don't think it is strength of field
> alone that translates into magnitude of tidal effects.
>
> Remember, we are in freefall around the sun (or very nearly.)  If we
> were point sized objects, there would be no difference at all in being
> oriented up, down or sideways.  But the earth's surface is no longer
> a point object, so some points are closer to the sun and some are
> farther.  That ought to give a delta across the field, with different
> orbital velocities, causing a bit of "tidal" stuff to go on.
>
> Now we are much closer to the moon than the sun, so the change in
> the moon's field across the earth's dimension ought to be a much
> greater percentage than that of the sun's field.
>
> So off the top of my head, let's check the numbers --
>
> You say the moon G field is 180 times less.  Yet the distance ratio
> is 388 closer.  388/180 = 2.15.  Maybe just a coincidence, but pretty
> close to your 2.2 figure.
>
> --
>  - 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 Dec  6 17:04:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13503;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:02:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:02:39 -0800
Message-ID: <366B2B15.D6631B97 overunitylabs.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 19:10:45 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields overunitylabs.com>
Reply-To: jfields overunitylabs.com
Organization: OverUnity Laboratories, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Scott's G Whiz Problem
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <00a001be2163$e0f0a9e0$d7441d26 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3wTZO1.0.rI3.laoQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25222
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> 
> "The Tide-Generating Force is proportional to the mass of the disturbing
> body (moon) and the inverse cube of it's separation".
> 
> "if the moon attracted every point within the Earth with equal force, there
> would be no tide".
> 
> Hope this helps.    The equation for the force and a sketch will cost you
> extra. :-)
> 
> Regards,   Frederick

--

if the tide-generating force is proportional to the mass of the
disturbing body, doesn't the intervening mass have an effect?

That is to say, shouldn't the tide on the side of the earth closest to
the moon rise higher than the tide recedes on the opposite side of the
earth, since the mass of the earth "shields" the opposite side from the
moon?

John Fields

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 18:06:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA00293;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:04:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:04:27 -0800
Message-ID: <001001be2185$366e0720$8b441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <jfields overunitylabs.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott's G Whiz Problem
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:58:40 -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: <"FROej.0.S4.gUpQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25223
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Fields <jfields overunitylabs.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Scott's G Whiz Problem

John Fields wrote:
>
>if the tide-generating force is proportional to the mass of the
>disturbing body, doesn't the intervening mass have an effect?

Yes. The side of the Earth away from the moon is being pulled toward the
center while the side facing the moon is pulled outward.

BTW. The ratio of masses of the moon and sun worked in with the inverse cube
of the distances leaves the moon with 2.175 times as much tidal influence as
the sun, even though the sun's gravitational pull on the Earth is 180 times
as strong as that of the moon.
>
>That is to say, shouldn't the tide on the side of the earth closest to
>the moon rise higher than the tide recedes on the opposite side of the
>earth, since the mass of the earth "shields" the opposite side from the
>moon?

There's at centrifugal force factor here and it all gets too complicated for
me.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>John Fields
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 18:38:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11955;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:36:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:36:14 -0800
Message-ID: <366B4098.4A9B keelynet.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:42:32 -0600
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Reply-To: jdecker keelynet.com
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Water as Fuel scam on EXTRA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AQqIl3.0.fw2.TypQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25224
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Folks!

In case you didn't get a chance to see it yet, the TV show EXTRA did a
test on the gullibility of people when presented with an 'impossible'
claim and were given an 'opportunity' to buy the product.  

In one way, it is frustrating to watch something like this but it does
show how con artists can fluorish in the alternative science arenas
because basically 'people want to believe'.

In Dallas, the segment was shown on Channel 27 at 7:45PM 12/06/98 on
EXTRA and entitled 'Run your car on water?'

The female narrator introduced the segment saying, this was a con that
dates back nearly a century.  Even Henry Ford paid a conman $10,000 for
a formula that was supposed to make comubustible water.

The scam used props that were simply plastic enclosed MAPP sensors which
were billed as 'Hydrogen Converter modules' that required no fuel, just
water.

The narrator said though there was no such thing as a hydro processor as
they claimed the show wanted to see how many people would invest in such
a scam.

The show was setup outdoors in the parking lot of a shop in Tempe,
Arizona.  

The system sold for $250, which consisted of the plastic enclosed MAPP
sensors and connection instructions.

A truck that looked like a Ford Explorer was used as the demonstration
vehicle and had a sign on the windows saying water powered car, hand
written with shoe polish.

A handful of these MAPP sensors, a TV with a promotional video
explaining the system and including fake testimonials raving about the
product.

The actual demonstration showed a gallon of water being poured into the
gas tank of the truck, the truck was then started up and supposed to be
running on the water.  In fact, a secret hidden hose shunted the water
away from the gas tank so that the vehicle was actually burning
gasoline.

The promoter rambled on with various octane ratings and claimed that
high octane gasoline had an octane rating of 92 while this system burned
water with an octane rating of 106.  The narrator admitted he had no
idea what he was talking about but the people did not question what he
said.

One guy gave a deposit of $100 and was to bring the rest of the money
later.  The narrator said on his drive from California to Arizona he
routinely filled his car up on water, not gasoline and it didn't cost
him a penny.  

He said hydrogen didn't blow up with this system and that there was a 
100% guarantee.  One guy who saw the system even wanted to become a
dealer for this product.  

They showed 3 men who had fallen for the pitch and actually bought the
units, however, not a single woman fell for it.  

All the money was refunded when the scam was revealed.
==================
What to make of this?  Ask P.T. Barnum and have your wife, girlfriend or
lady friend check out your potential investments.....<g>....

To my understanding;
  
  1)  There is no question hydrogen burns.
  2)  There is no question hydrogen can be generated from water.
  3)  There is no question that hydrogen burning in an engine can 
      provide sufficient thrust to push a piston.

If burning pure hydrogen, the problem lies with embrittlement of the
metal of the engine, making the engine subject to damage from mechanical
shocks, or from weakening of the cylinder walls from the excess heat
from hydrogen combustion.

If burning hydrogen with oxygen, the problem lies in the production of
water when the two gases recombine in the presence of a spark, thereby
rusting the engine.

The closest solution I've seen was that of Dad Garrett as laid out in
the file;

          http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm

where hydrogen, oxygen and outside air are burned in the engine as was
done in the 1930's.
-- 
           Jerry Wayne Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
         http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
      Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 18:55:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA18000;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:52:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:52:45 -0800
Message-ID: <366B4306.29A3 earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 19:52:54 -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: Hansen: recombination artifact  12.6.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oz7LL1.0.AP4.yBqQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:   Re: Hansen: Storms: recombination artifact 12.5.98
       Date:  Sun, 06 Dec 1998 12:50:52 +0000
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Lee Hansen by Ed Storms

> Subject: Storms: Hansen: Shanahan: recombination artifact 12.4.98 -Reply
>   Date:  Sat, 05 Dec 1998 10:49:59 -0700
>   From:  "Lee HANSEN" <LDHANSEN chemdept.byu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> >As I recall, you were a co-author on a paper by Steve Jones which >purported to measure recombination caused by PdH, and from this study
> >the authors concluded that all of the published excess heat >measurements
> >could be explained by unrecognized recombination. Do you remember this
> >work and wish to change your statement or the conclusion reached in the
> >paper?
> 
> What we said in that paper was "We will not attempt to prove that all
> observations of excess heat are due to either a reduced faradaic
> efficiency or experimental error. Evaluating all reports of excess heat
> in sufficient detail would, in fact, be impossible because critical
> information is missing from the published reports. Furthermore, the
> burden of providing adequate evidence that the reactions of H2 and O2,
> or calorimetric errors, are not the source of reported excess heat rests
> on the experimenters. The results reported in this paper support the
> hypothesis that reaction 4 can explain most available reports to date of
> excess heat in both Pd/LiOD(D2O)/Pt and Ni/K2CO3(aq)/Pt cells when
> running at low current densities. I stand by that statement. The study only examined reactions at low
> current density. I do not know what x was in the PdHx, but it must have
> been small. Nobody knows what the exchange current is on PdHx at the x
> values obtained at high current density such as in your studies.]

The D/Pd value on the surface at low current density is at least 1.5,
while high current densities can increase the value, I estimate, to 2.0.
You are claiming  this change can affect the catalytic nature of the
surface.  However, as I have pointed out repeatedly, regardless of the
catalytic activity of the surface, only oxygen that can reach the
cathode can be recombined at this location. It is an obvious fact that
only part of the generated oxygen can reach the cathode.  It is also an
obvious fact that as the current is increased, the fraction reaching the
cathode will decrease.  That is the reason why faradaic efficiency
becomes less important at high current. It would help a lot if you would
admit to the obvious so that we can debate the important points. You
might choose the fraction of oxygen reaching the cathode as being 20%
instead of the 10% I estimate. Pick a number and try to make a case for
your idea so we can move on.

The paper completely ignored those studies which used internal
recombiners where the faradaic efficiency at the cathode is irrelevant.
It also omitted noting those studies which kept track of the amount of
external recombination, yet still saw an excess. Why were these
important studies omitted when the general conclusion was made? These
would be examples of the experimenters providing the evidence you
requested, yet this evidence was ignored in the paper.  I suggest this
is an example of nonobjectivity, a problem which makes any discussion
pointless.

> >Yes, stirring does cause mixing, but as anyone who has looked into a
> cell knows, most of the bubbles circulate well away from the cathode and
> gradually rise to the surface.  Because my cathode is surrounded by a
> mesh of Pt, at least one half of the oxygen stays outside of this cage
> and is completely unavailable to the cathode. The remainder within the
> cage rise quickly to the surface, because stirring does not reach this
> region, and the convection currents are down at the wall and up at the
> center where the cathode is located.
> 
> [If the solution is not well stirred at the cathode, except by
> convection currents, then there must be large temperature gradients in
> the cell, and because they rely on the assumption that the temperature
> represents the average in the liquid, the calorimetric results cannot be
> correct. Also, temperature gradients at the cathode which change with
> stirring will cause different heat losses through the cathode leads that
> are dependent on the cell conditions. Since you use the electrolysis
> reaction to calibrate the system, it is subject to the same conditions
> as a joule heater -- all the heat generated must enter the solution, not
> be lost up the lead wires. Is this the source of the supposed excess
> heat?]

The temperature of interest is the average temperature at the cell wall,
not the average of the entire liquid.  It is the temperature at the wall
surface and only this temperature which causes heat to flow through the
wall,i.e. the thermal barrier. The temperature at the cathode is
irrelevant. Granted, some heat can travel up the leads but this is small
compared to that going through the large area of the surrounding jacket.
In addition, apparent excess energy would only result if the loss
through the leads changed.  I remind you once again, we are not
measuring absolute power but changes in power. Therefore, only CHANGES
in heat loss are seen as excess. Where do you get the notion that all of
the heat could be lost up the lead wires? Don't you think I would have
tried to avoid this and would have noticed if it occurred? Let's try to
be realistic.
  
> When calibration is done by Joule heating, no heat is released at the
> recombiner.  When the same calibration is done by applying electrolytic
> current, the recombiner becomes hot. In spite of this difference in
> temperature, the calibrations constants are the same. Recombiners do not
> have a tricky habit as you describe. In my case, I use an external
> recombiner in which a thermistor is located.  Any failure of the
> internal recombiner is noticed as an increase in temperature of the
> external recombiner.
> 
> [How does the heat get from the recombiner to the solution? What are the
> heat transfer paths from the recombiner to the outside? Where exactly
> are the joule heater, electrodes, and recombiner located with respect to
> each other? What are the materials, diameters, and lengths of the lead
> wires? As I understand it you run a magnetic stirrer during heater
> calibration, but not during electrolysis. How do you account for the
> energy input from stirring?]

Most of this information is shown on the drawing of the cell in my
paper. I'm curious why this is important to you. Are you going to make
heat loss calculations and show that this is the smoking gun? If you
would go to this trouble, I would be happy to give you the information
on one condition. If you find the heat loss change through the wires to
be too small to explain the excess, you will so state and drop the
subject.

Your understanding is not correct, the cells are stirred at all times,
during calibration as well as during the run.  The energy input during
stirring is important only if it changes.  The stirrer has a constant
rate controlled to +-1 RPM. The absolute amount of power is irrelevant
but about 20 mW.

> >Little or no experimental evidence exists to show that they don't. That
> > is the real problem.
> 
> The real problem is that you do not know the experimental evidence which
> exists.
> 
> [How can I get it?]

Read my reviews or my papers in Infinite Energy. I have sent you my
latest review as you requested.  If I thought it would do any good, I
would even send you unpublished details. However, just as you require
certain conditions on my part,  I require conditions on yours. I expect
you to study the material and be objective in your evaluation.  I do not
have the time to debate objections which are already answered in the
publications or which could be discarded after a little thought.

> >Not an exact answer but a good guess can be made using your own
> experience.
> 
> [No, because I have never run at high current density. I suspect that
> PdHx with x values near saturation may be a very good catalyst for
> recombination, but I do not know of any measurements of this property.
> It would certainly explain a lot of things if there were a critical x
> value above which recombination (actually the reaction of O2 at the
> cathode) suddenly became much faster.]

But only as fast as oxygen is available to the surface. Why is this
concept so difficult? In addition, in many studies, the amount of power
associated with total recombination is small compared to the claimed
excess. 

If an external recombiner were used and suddenly recombination switched
to the cathode, your concerns would be justified.  However, everyone I
know who uses external recombination keeps track of the amount of
external recombination and would notice if the location changed. 
Furthermore, internal recombination can not suffer from this problem. In
this case, you would have to use Kirk's idea which I have already
answered.
  
> >It makes no sense to suggest errors just because you can imagine them,
> and then, in the face of experimental evidence and simple calculations
> to the contrary, insist they exist.  Give me a break and admit that some
> of your suggestions may not be important.
> 
> [Most of my suggestions are probably not important, but how do I know if
> I don't ask?]

A good point. However, I have two problems. You ask questions which I
hope could be answered by reading the papers and when I provide answers
you don't believe them. I have no problem with your asking for a
clarification of my answer or raising a good point about the answer. The
problem is that you do not accept anything I say.

> [Accepted as an insult.]

Perhaps it was, I'm sorry.  However, I do expect you to provide some
objective information as an expert rather than making statements which
can be easily shown to be false or trivial.
 
> > The calorimeters I described
> 
> [I do not know what calorimeters you are talking about. There are
> hundreds if not thousands of different designs.]

I'm describing types not individual designs. The types are designed to
reduce the effect of internal gradients. Some designs succeed better
than others, but all of these types reduce the effect of internal
gradients below the accuracy needed for cold fusion studies, i.e. in the
10 to 1000 mW range.

> > Power
> is applied to the interior and this power is adjusted to keep the
> interior temperature constant as the studied reactions release heat.
> 
> [Alright, so it is a power compensation calorimeter. Inside and outside
> are the same temperature, except during transients. Heat measurements by
> power compensation are subject to the same errors from gradients as are
> heat conduction measurements. If the gradients change they can affect
> the temperature sensor or the ratio of heat loss through the walls and
> the lead wires. And those cause errors. I will reiterate -- the only way
> to prove a calorimeter is working properly is to run a known reaction
> that closely duplicates the unknown process.]

You seem to have a problem separating principle from practice.  Of
course heat can pass through the lead wires, so the question is
magnitude. If the temperature of the interior is the same as the
temperature of the exterior, what process can suddenly cause heat to
enter the cell from the environment to be mistaken for excess heat?
Granted, if heat is produced within the cell by a transient, some of
this heat will leave through the wires before the internal compensator
can react.  However, this process would cause the amount of heat to be
understated by this loss.  No mechanism exists for an apparent excess to
be created in the first place. In any case, the amount of heat that can
pass through the wires is very small compared to that being removed by
water flowing through the jacket. Surely this fact must be obvious.
Indeed, most people who use flow calorimetry measure this unrecovered
heat loss and find it to be very small.

The known reaction which you require is used. It is the electrolytic
decomposition of water measured during calibration or just before excess
heat is detected.  Once again, I must remind you that we are not doing
absolute calorimetry but are looking for CHANGES from a base line.  The
calorimeter sees a steady production of heat cause by electrolysis.  The
amount of this heat is not important. Then, suddenly, the amount of heat
being generated within the cell increases. It is this increase which is
important. The magnitude of this increase may be in error, the amount of
error being determined by some of the issues you raise. However,the
presence of this excess in the first place has not been explained by
these arguments.

> >Please read my reviews for such references.
> 
> [See request below. And, I did read your review about a year ago. It
> contained several references to work that is known to be incorrect. Have
> you removed those yet?]

Known to be incorrect by whom? I do not focus on studies I know to be
incorrect. However, I know of several studies, Miles for example, you
and Dick think are incorrect but which I find basically correct. This
work is included in my later review.
 
> [Yes, I feel free to make any suggestion I like. You are free to say
> they are crazy if you like. But until you prove that your calorimeter
> makes accurate measurements, you do not have the evidence for any new
> phenomenon.]

I find no way to prove this to you. Every example of why the suggested
error is unimportant is rejected by stating a general principle without
any consideration for magnitude. You keep raising issues relevant to
absolute calorimetry when we are using relative calorimetry. Even
obvious and well known aspects of calorimetry are questioned without any
supporting evidence. I feel like I’m in a Salem witch trial and I'm
guilty until I can prove myself innocent with no help from the judges. 
If this approach does not soon change, I will stop this discussion and
use my time more productively.
 
 Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 19:09:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA23688;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:07:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:07:39 -0800
Message-ID: <19981207030737.19247.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:07:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: LW....Re: Low frequency stuff
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"FAHQX.0.tn5.wPqQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Most of John Schurner's ELF phenomena look like they can be explained
by motion of a dielectric or conducting object in the background ELF
EM field. Displacement of the object changes the field slightly, and
this altered is what is detected. The generic word for altering an
incident field is "scattering".

The same occurs with visible light. We see, because objects reflect
(scatter) part of the background visible EM field.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 19:43:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA25308;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <366B4E5B.784A earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:41:15 -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: Young: new CF page  12.6.98
Content-Type: message/news
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"aYcNW2.0.HB6.AvqQs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25227
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!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.225!attworldnet!newsadm
From: "Amy's Guy (Garrett J Young)" <crdelgado worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion page
Date: 6 Dec 1998 04:26:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Message-ID: <366A06E5.E9D2BDF worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.78.107.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
Xref: nntp.earthlink.net sci.physics.fusion:24993

To all:

I have made a cold nuclear fusion page, please review it and tell me
what you think. http://members.tripod.com/~WWJD_GY/  thanks!

chip

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 19:47:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07730;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:46:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:46:17 -0800
Message-ID: <366B4FA9.7627 earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:46:49 -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: Storms: thanks!  12.6.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ibcvK.0.cu1.9-qQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 6, 1998  Dear all, I again want to congratulate and thank Ed Storms
for his lucid, courteous, detailed, and prompt responses in this
debate.  I tend to agree with Scott Little's recent post, that
calorimetry is so fraught with subtle errors that typical excess heats
in the range of >=20% are hard to accept as proof of a nuclear energy
source, especially when events are rare, there is as yet no reliable
replication, and no convincing proof of nuclear products, radiations, or
obvious reaction sites.  I wonder if rare excess heats, if real, might
be due to inadvertant detection of weird background particles, since so
many are currently being imagined by current supersymmetric theories. 
There are also psychokinetic effects, claimed plausibly in various
experiments in parapsychology: things do mysteriously go bump in the
night...  One avenue to cooperatively explore is the deliberate creation
of various artifacts in calorimeters, in order to extablish what is
possible.  A related effort would be to create an artifact-free
calorimeter that can measure 100 mW excess at 1% for .1 to 10 W input
power, and that would allow digital photography of the cathode surface
at many wavelengths, IF to UV, at a rate of 10 Hz for months, along with
recording of acoustic signals.  Another issue is the accurate
measurement of input power, certainly an issue in the Stringham
ultrasonic cavitation approach.  What is the status now of the very
interesting Claytor method, glow discharge production of tritium from
deuterium gas on Pd alloy cathodes?  I notice that in Cold Fusion Times
7(1), Winter, 1999, p. 12, Mizuno and Ohmori are still claiming nuclear
transmutations, but their mass spectrometry as reported earlier this
year in Fusion Technology is certainly not adequate to prove this.  Have
they ever done any chemical analysis to substantiate their claims?

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 20:52:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA00390;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 20:51:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 20:51:28 -0800
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:43:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: LW....Re: Low frequency stuff
In-Reply-To: <366A64C1.1B9E ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981206233256.25436B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"vFT5G.0.z5.GxrQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	See notes... and questions...


On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 aki ix.netcom.com wrote:

> December 6, 1998
> 
> Vortex, (L and B)
> 
> VLF to ELF electromagnetic radiation (also at other frequencies)
> detection of all material undergoing any change is clearly indicated.
> The very fact of a 'receiver' detecting these radiations points to this.
> 
> The questions that arise from this are:
> 
> 1. What is the spectrum of those radiation in different actions, whether
> they be physical, chemical, electrical, nuclear, and some combination of
> these?

	What radiations are you talkiing about?

> 
> 2. To what extent do radiation values have to be be accounted for in
> balancing energy equations?
> 
> 3. Are these values smothered and lost by larger macro values?
> 
> 4. If so, how can they be detected?
> 
	Signal processing in the 0.1 to 100 cps range is specialized... 
few do it without distorting the 'dynamic' aspects... both rate of change 
and specificty are impoertant.   In the 50 cps and down range it can be 
easy to get distorted information. 

	 Example:  Suppose you have a band pass filter at 10 cps... 
Assume the filter will ring for 10 cycles...  this is a one second period 
from full signal, call it 2 volts p-p .. to 1%, or 0.02 volts.  Now 
consider a step change, from 1 V to 2 V, for a period of .5 second, then 
back to 1V.  The output of the BPF will show ~ 1 V then 1.5 V then 1V... 
this is NOT a 1 to 2 V change... AND the 'step' will be expressed as a 
gradula change.  This is a common distortion is EEG and seismic work.


> 5. To what extent has the radiation spectrum been detected for the
> varied actions? 
> 
	Given some 'radiation'... say charge ...  the distortion 
mentioned above will always be an issue  UNLESS you have 'appropriate' 
signal processing.  


> Also years before the VLF interest (pre-draft age), I noticed that
> substitute rubber bands used for model pulley belts stretched out of
> shape pretty fast. I thought the stretching pulley action involved some
> kind of molecular changes on the bands, even temporarily. And molecular
> changes involved shifting electrical charges. Ergo, there might be
> somthing electrical floating around the moving, stretching rubber bands.
> The upshot of this was to place an open audio pre-amp input cable
> (always sensitive to pick up hum) close to a running rubber band. Sure
> enough, some kind of radiation was detected, in audio, by the cable. It
> was electrical noise coming from the rubber, reflecting the speed of the
> stretch and contraction. I was satisfied. I didn't go furthur to see if
> the radiation was of a particular type or expand the experiment.
> 
	This is a charge emission.  This is detectable by by appropriate 
sferics or 'fair weather current' types of recievers.



> -AK-
> 
> John Schnurer wrote:
> >LW
> >Dear Vo.,
> >The area from 30 cps to 15,000 cps is VERY interesting.... with a
> >very good front end one can hear the field [in radio land] .. at about >150 to 250 cps emitted by a bees wings as it flies by.... you can hear >the field, a 'hissing' of car tires ..... if you shout loundly at a >piece of aluminum foil [don't get too c
lose!] carrying a low current >200 to 500 volts you can hear speech modulation ...
> >         AND:
> > insulated wire in the wind
> > fan blades
> > windshield wipers
> > dawn chorus
> > lightning
> > fair weather currents
> >         and much more...
> > walking on cold dry snow
> > fly swatter in dry air
> > ... a lot of human made emissions...
> 
> 
			JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 21:20:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA08649;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:19:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:19:00 -0800
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:11:01 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Some mechanisms...Re: LW....Re: Low frequency stuff
In-Reply-To: <19981207030737.19247.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981206235823.25436D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FQViA1.0.372.4LsQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	Some of the mechanisms for these types of emissions include, but 
are not limited to:

	ELF .... does NOT mean anything other than a frequency range...
	See notes...


On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Michael Schaffer wrote:

> Most of John Schurner's ELF phenomena look like they can be explained
> by motion of a dielectric or conducting object in the background ELF
> EM field. Displacement of the object changes the field slightly, and
> this altered is what is detected. The generic word for altering an
> incident field is "scattering".

	Triboelectric ... both material-material and air-material
	distortion of ambient 'fair weather' currents
	EM emission
	Charge emission
	magnetic field emission

	The effects are varied and interesting.... in most cases they are 
simple... but not always obvious.



> 
> The same occurs with visible light. We see, because objects reflect
> (scatter) part of the background visible EM field.
> ==

	Bee wing effects are not EM but are charge in generation 
source...sort of a time variant electrostatic effect.

 I will have to shield a magnetic only detector to see if the changing
 [bee wing] charge results in magnetic of EM. 

	If you open and close a paper match box you get a charge effect...
detectable on electrometer...[Mr. Wizard did this once on TV!! :) ] and
charge reciever...[I do this live !!  :)] this is one I have not detected
magnetically, but have detected 'charge wise'.   Connecting Bill Beaty's 
FET electrometer sensors to R-C coupled audio amp would be simple and 
crude way to start.

	Contact me off line if you want one of the higher end ones I make.


	Bottom line:

	A given ELF effect might be mechanical.... magnetic .... EM, ...
charge .... change in amplitude of light ... or other....

	Get it? 


> Michael J. Schaffer
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec  6 22:33:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA28155;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:29:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:29:41 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199812070629.AAA00899 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <366B2278.7A45BE4A ihug.co.nz> from John Berry at "Dec 7, 98 01:34:00 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:29:37 -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: <"VerKF1.0.rt6.LNtQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Berry wrote:
> What percentage of the sun's gravity reaches earth (as if we stopped
> orbiting the sun so we could feel the full force) not what is left
> after the opposing centrifugal force.

Gravity, like light and radio emanating from a point source, obeys the
inverse square law for distance.  (With the exception of the gravity
intensity inside the source mass, which declines to zero as you approach
the center rather than increasing to infinity as the inverse square
law would predict.)

So since the sun has a radius of 695,000 km and an acceleration of
274 m/s^2 at the surface, that would drop to 1/4 or 274*.25 = 68.5 m/s^2
at another 695,000 km above the surface, or 1,390,000 km above the
center of the sun.  Taking the surface distance to the center to be
unity, doubling that height in the inverse square law gives 274/2^2.

Or to keep it in km the equation is:

acceleration (m/s^2) at altitude x from center of sun = 274/(x/695,000)^2

Given that we are 1.49E8 km from the sun, we have:

 0.0000218 m/s^2 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2

Since earth's accel is 9.8 m/s^2, the sun's accel stated in "g" at our
distance would seem to be 0.0000022, or 2.2E-6g.


-- 
 - 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 Dec  6 23:36:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA10512;
	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:35:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:35:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981207013507.009c7390 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 01:35:07 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <199812070629.AAA00899 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <366B2278.7A45BE4A ihug.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"d5uF-1.0.6a2.0LuQs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Logajan wrote:

>Remember, we are in freefall around the sun....

YES....that's why we don't "feel" the direct gravitational pull of the Sun.
Thank you!

>Given that we are 1.49E8 km from the sun, we have:
> 0.0000218 m/s^2 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2
>Since earth's accel is 9.8 m/s^2, the sun's accel stated in "g" at our
>distance would seem to be 0.0000022, or 2.2E-6g.

Something went wrong above, John.  It comes out 6.08E-4g.  I've checked it
~10 times now.

Now we should feel the direct pull of the moon (very nearly) because it is
in orbit around us.  That pull works out to 3.4E-6g, which is pretty small.
 A 200 gram weight should 'change' by +/- 0.68 milligrams daily (not
monthly as I said before) as the Earth rotates 'under' the moon.

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 Dec  7 07:45:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21167;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:43:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:43:15 -0800
Posted-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:39:29 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <366BF691.F9FEFC6F verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 17:38:57 +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>, Pete Skeggs <plskeggs@inetarena.com>
Subject: (eprint:cond-mat/9812070) A possibility of emission of high frequency gravitational radiation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3a5Ti.0.eA5.IU_Qs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9812070

Condensed Matter, abstract
cond-mat/9812070

From: Giorgio Fontana <fontana science.unitn.it>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:42:07 GMT   (9kb)

A possibility of emission of high frequency
gravitational radiation from junctions between
d-wave and s-wave superconductors

Authors: Giorgio Fontana
Subj-class: Superconductivity

  Recent measurements on a class of high-Tc superconductors
  (HTSCs) have shown that Cooper-pairs wavefunction is a d-wave,
  while in another class, d-wave and s-wave may coexist. Conventional
  low-Tc superconductors are s-wave superconductors. When d-wave
  Cooper-pairs are injected in a superconductor that can sustain
  s-wave pairing, d-wave pairs are subject to transition to s-wave pairs
  and energy is irradiated by means of gravitons. We show that in
  s-wave to d-wave type superconductor (SDS) junctions in an
  equilibrium condition no net gravitational wave energy is emitted, on
  the other hand under non equilibrium conditions a net gravitational
  wave energy is emitted by the junction. Experiments that show a
  gravitational interaction between inhomogeneous high-Tc
  superconductors, under non-equilibrium conditions, and test objects
  may be understood by accepting a possibility of emission of
  gravitational radiation from SDS junctions. 

Paper: HTML

This is the second paper (revised version of the first paper) of G. Fontana on the subject. There is a interesting rejecting letter from a journal about these papers at Fontana home page http://www.science.unitn.it/~fontana/ as http://www.science.unitn.it
/~fontana/referee.html

 
Regards,
hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 08:49:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20798;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:48:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:48:03 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981207114851.0083c980 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:48:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Final Analysis: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KfhsT1.0.q45.2R0Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



    Thanks to all who helped with the draft
paper which has now been taken down, in part for revision
based upon the great comments, ideas, and criticism
from some of the participating vorts.
    
    Mitchell Swartz






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 09:12:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27625;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:08:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:08:30 -0800
Message-ID: <366C0BB0.77B4 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:09:04 -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: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact  & McKubre data  12.3.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RWcpN2.0.Zl6.Ek0Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Lost Response to Storms
  Date:  Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:58 -0400 (EDT)
  From:  Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

     Rich,
     
     I originally mailed out a response to Ed Storms last comment to me
on 12/3.  However upon getting into work today I find that my mail
system had problems that evening.  Since I haven't seen you post my
response yet, I am presuming it was lost.  Therefore I am resending it
as an attachment to this note.
     
     Kirk

> Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.24.98
>       Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
>       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>      
> Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

Note:  In Ed's last response he has three or so sentances prefaced with
a ">".  Normally this indicates a quote of a prior messgae.  However, I
don't think tis is correct, so I have treated those sentences as Ed's
below.
      
> Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to 
> be talking past each other.  

Agreed.

>   Certain facts exist which are not a matter 
> of debate.  

No.  In Science all 'facts' are just our current best understanding.
As such, a new view can always cause revision or reinterpretation.
As an example, it was long acknowledged that Newtonian Mechanics was 
the way the world worked.  Today, we have a different view.  Are we sure 
it will not change tomorrow?  Isn't that just the point of  'CF', that a
'new' physics must be invoked to explain certain experimental
obsevations?
This continuing evolution of our world view applies to every detail.  

In the specific arena of CF, I believe that there is no body of 'facts'
that can even claim a significant level of support from a majority of
scientists.  This is primarily due to the inability to reproduce and
control a set of effects.  Thus, there can be no claim that the 'facts'
have been determined.  Instead what we have is a body of inconsistent
experimental observations and many inconsistent hypotheses to 'explain'
the observations.  

Your statement implies that there is a set of experimental observations
that cut through the inconsistencies and reveal a set of 'facts' that we
could use today to produce CF or CANR at will, whenever we want.  On
that I certainly disagree.

> If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts 
> must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.

If you change the definition of the 'facts' we are talking about to be
the following set, then I agree.  Otherwise, I agree that we are wasting
our time.  My 'facts':
-  All human beings are fallible.
-  Thus, all work done by humans can be flawed (and usually is!).
-  To minimize that possibility, independent replication and
    congruent demonstrations must be done.
(Note that this sequence only minimizes the possibility of error, not 
eliminates it.  And, the issue is always how big and what kinds of
errors are present in a given human endeavor.)
      
> To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we 
> stand.
>      
> 1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in 
> location for recombination within the cell. 

No.  I propose that redistribution of heat within a calorimeter can
cause an apparent excess heat signal if that heat moves to an area of
different detection efficiency.  

I suggest that recombination reprsents a logical possibility for this,
based on the precedent of extant experimental data.  It is not the only
possiblity. My thermo/math model doesn't care how it happens.  If it
does, you can get an excess heat signal.

The use of recombination was convenient and in my mind a likely true
cause of an apparent excess heat signal in a closed calorimeter.  If
someone else can come up with another viable alternative way to get a
shift, I'm all ears.

>  This change produces a 
> change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This 
> model depends on several assumptions:
>      
> 1. The location for recombination can change.
> 2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.
>      
> These assumptions are answered by the following facts:
>      
> I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low 
> current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not 
> important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an 
> experimental fact.

I will agree that Jones, et. al. made certain observations which you
call 'experimental facts'.  Ditto for Miles.  I am unconvinced that the
"Truth" is known, and that another set of experimental observations will
not unify my view, your view, Jones' view, and Miles' view.

In "fact", what you are doing is confusing observations and
interpretations. You prefer to interpret the cited works to 'prove' that
such and such happens here but not there.  I argue that it proves
anything.  I argue that a sufficiently simplistic, but too simplistic,
proposal will 'explain' all the data to everyone's satisfaction.  (Yes,
I am paraphrasing Einstein.) 
      
> I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on 
> cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to 
> the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.

I can't agree that is a 'fact' without seeing the measurements and 
computations you use to lead you to your conclusion.  It seems to me
to be possible to get enough O2 to the electrode to do significant
things with respect to apparent excess heat.
      
> I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the 
> recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is 
> an experimental fact.
 
I can't agree here because it is also an 'experimental fact' that Dr.
McKubre has measured up to 135C temperatures at his recombiner.  You
communicate that you only saw 50C, which was the electrolyte
temperature.  I see a fundamental disagreement here, and I conclude a
likely scenario is that yourtemp measurement was not measuring what you
thought it was.

> From these facts I conclude that:
>      
> 1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small. 
> 2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on 
> purpose, is also small.

Dr. McKubre's data shows that recombiner and electrolyte temperature
correlates to input power.  It also show _significant_ gradients of
50-60C between the electrolyte and recombiner temperatures.  It also
shows variation in the recombiner temp for no apparent reason, and that
variation can be of several types, but they can span up to a few degrees
easily.  This also conflicts with your communicated observations.  Thus
I would suggest that making conclusions prior to resolving the
dichotomies is premature.
      
> Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions 
> can explain excess energy.
>      

I disagee to the extent that Dr. McKubre's data suggest my proposal may
be functioning.  I am trying as time allows to address that issue
myself, but I do conclude that

THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR MY PROPOSED ARTIFACT TO BE EVIDENT ARE
PRESENT IN CLOSED ELECTROLYSIS CELLS WITH RECOMBINATION CATALYTS.       

I don't know if I will have the time or energy to analyze the data
enough to fully address this question.  For me, I have participated in
the scientific process by pointing out a possibility.   My purpose 
in doing this has been met at this point. If my opinions end up being
ignored or discussed or acted upon is irrelevant to me. 

> ---
> You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact.
>      
> You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general 
> statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.
>      
> You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss 
> of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an 
> assumption.
>      
> (Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area 
> exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater 
> effect.)
>      
> From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct. 
> You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.
>      

I am not providing experimental 'facts' true, but that also is not what 
I am mainly discussing here.  For example, you reported that you
measured the gas space temperature in your cell, and that it was
essentially equal to the electrolyte temperature.  You then
_INTERPRETED_ this fact to mean that no gradients can exist, and then
_CONCLUDED_ my proposals were meritless.  

I agree with your 'fact', I diagree with your interpretation, and I have 
other 'facts' from another researcher to back me up.  In addition, I
have other relevant knowledge that allows me to conclude your
intepretation was potentially inconsistent.  Thus I conclude your
conclusion was premature.
      
> I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location 
> of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any 
> book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his 
> comments.)

I also would like such a comment.  In fact I wish this discussion was
more 
than two way.  I also would like to see contributions from Mike McKubre
and 
T. Passel.

As I have noted, I can't believe you are claiming that you can build a 
perfect calorimeter.  The best Dr. McKubre claims is 99% recovery.  That
still leaves open the possibility of my 'artifact' being observed,
because all I require is two regions in a calorimeter that transmit heat
to the detection system at different efficiencies.  If in fact you are
claiming this, I would like to see the documentation on how to do it. 
It basically disproves my guiding 'facts'.
      
> I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy 
> production.  This is an experimental fact.

Put in the word 'apparent' and I'll agree.  
      
> From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general 
> application.

And I suggest you are being premature.

>      
> You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the 
> location of heat production.

Yes, and I delineated the necessary design considerations for this.  I
also conducted a sensitivity study via a spreadsheet calculation to
gauge the magnitude, and found that under certain conditions it seemes
sufficient sensitivity could be found. 

Thus I have 1) presented a basic 'theory', 2) determined that
mathematically it seems reasonable, and 3) cited data that could be
interpreted to conform. Isn't this the basis of how understanding of a
set of data is arrived at?

I have also gone a step further and proposed a physical/chemical
mechanism for how this might occur.  Like most proposed mechanisms, this
should be taken as a suggestion only.  I have also realized that a
simple change in mixing could cause more O2 and H2 to see each other,
thus producing the artifact that I propose.  All the fancy chemistry may
not even be needed...
      
> From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected 
> by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any 
> experimental evidence.
  
What I really conclude is that I have delineatd a potential effect in
any calorimeter.  The extent is it present and its magnitude probably
vary from run to run and from one experimental design to another.  And,
how can I give experimental evidence about someone else's experiment? 
The best I can do is suggest, or as in the case of Dr. McKubre's recent
report, analyze what data is presented in my manner.  

But this is the scientific process in action.  "They" present data and
try to determine its relevance to our world view.  "We" examine and test
the conclusions.  If the proposals stand up (mainly via replication and 
demonstrated control}, then they are incorporated into the world view
and success is declared.  "They" and "we" are totally fluid.
      
> You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured. 
> This in a myth.  

OK, fine.  I won't defend that.  (BTW it's 'excess' heat.  I always
assume a relatively high overall collection efficiency in my thinking.) 
It probably is just my personal bias anyway.  The point is that whether
it is true or not, it is really irrelevant to the discussion.  What is
 relevant is whether my proposal has fundamental flaws in it, and
whether any extant experimental data support it.  (Note that I did NOT
say "or not".  The point being that millions of studies that don't
support my proposal are all cancelled out of the equation under the
'truth' that lack of observation of an effect does not prove the absence
of the effect in all cases.)

>  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by 
> some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry. 
> However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles, 
> Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my 
> reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout 
> the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of 
> palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.
>      

Again, I am using the recent EPRI report of Dr. McKubre's work to
support my thesis on a general level.  I also do not find your results
to in contention, only the interpretation of those results.
      
> If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me 
> your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.
>      

Again to be clear, your reported observations I generally accept at face 
value.  Where we differ is in the very next step, where you use these
observations to build a case, and I use them and others to build a 
different case.  Note that my case includes your observations.

> Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general world.

By themselves, they do not have more validity that the predictions of a 
good theory.  It is the totality of the set of data derived from the
work 
of many rsearchers that is used to establish our new best guess at the 
way Nature works.  Once that has occurred, then theory is left to catch 
up (as in the case of high Tc superconductors).
 
> These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well 
> understood phenomenon. 

Yes, and unfortunately my knowledge of the CF literature does not 
lead me to conclude that one person's conclusions have been adequately 
tested by others.  One example of attempts at that is the
work of Scott Little at EarthTech.  Unfortunately, he has never been 
able to confirm any claims of excess heat.  This seems to be a general
trend.  Perhaps you can cite some cases where I am wrong here, so that
I can reexamine my conclusions on this point?

> If we can not agree on some of the basic facts, 
> then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes 
> hopeless. This is the basic problem IĆm having with Rich and Dick as 
> well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is 
> pointless.
  
What I feel is actually occurring is that we do agree on the basic
facts.  I don't seriously contend that you did not observe the reported
temperatures.  What I disagree with is your interpretation of what that 
means.  Essentially, I draw the line between experimental facts and a 
theory or prosaic explantion much earlier than you do.  Thus a fraction 
of what you consider to be facts I don't.  

> It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a 
> client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for 
> the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the 
> latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.

My whole point in this entire discussion was to offer up my proposal for
a classic scientific discourse, in which my ideas would be assaulted,
and I would defend them with vigor.  After the dust had settled then we
all could perhaps decide on what conclusions could be safely drawn and
what additional work needs to be done.  I contend that this is _one_
necessary part to what you describe as a "search for the truth in a
spirit of cooperation and trust".  "Your best friend is your worst
critic" in Science.

I also have to ask about the usefulness of a process that ends up with
multiple reasearchers devoting many years of their professional life 
studying a phenomenon without noticeable significant progress.  March
'99 is 10 years, shouldn't we at least be on a mutual trail towards
defining what is necessary to get general agreement that the FPH effect
is real?

>      
> I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some 
> papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the 
> discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth 
> remembering with joy.
>      
> Ed Storms


---------------------------------
As an aside, I would like to let everyone know that I have had to 
return the EPRI report at this time.  I still have the data and I hope
to continue analysis of it as time progresses.  I wanted to purchase
a copy of the report, but I find that the quoted price is $10,000!  
These days that's 5 or 6 computers!  Could T. Passel, who I see is on
Rich's distribution list, comment as to why EPRI doesn't want the 
general scientific community  to read and comment on this work?   I find
that truly amazing.

Dick Blue had asked about the data, but I am probably not going to be
able to address his questions soon.  The supplied data is the 'raw'
data, and as such does not include a data stream for the excess energy
signal.  Thus, I have to compute it myself.  This might seem trivial,
but it isn't.  The M series of run uses a flow calorimter, and two inlet
Ts, two outlet Ts, heater and electrolysis voltage and current, and mass
flow rates are presented.  I can calculate input power easily (I*V), but
the calculation of output power is complicated by the fact that the mass
flowrate data has about 10% negative flowrates imbedded in it.  Thus I
have to clip or filter that data, and it seems to make a difference in
the excess heat signal.  This is especially true since the signal is
weak.  Furthermore, there is a calibration that has to be done, and
again, it seems to matter which data is included in that calibration
set.  Thus, I have determined one weakness to the tactic of placing raw
data on a CD is that the exact algorithms used to interpret the data
were not indicated.  This forces me to have to try many diferent methods
to 'massage' the data, and I haven't hit the right one yet.

I wanted to directly test the visual observation that inverse recombiner
temperature seemed to correlate to the excess heat signal in the first
excess heat event of run M1.  But until I can reproduce the report's
Figure, I would suspect my correlation coefficient.  I have also noted
that elsewhere the recombiner temperature varies due to no apparent
reason, and that those varinces may not produce excess heat signals.  In
other cases, the recombiner T does not change noticeably when an excess
heat is present (but there are caveats on that as well!).  It doesn't
surprise me that my 'artifact theory' might not be all-encompassing.  I
am a firm believer in Murphy's Law (If 
anything can go wrong it will.) and its first Corollary (If more than
one thing can go wrong, they all will.), so haing multiple sources of
error in an experiment (or explanation)is a given.  It just makes the
data interpretation much slower and more difficult.

However I reiterate that with careful analysis I still expect to see
where my 'artifact' might be active.  I also reiterate that the only
real way to test this is to use a dual calibration heater system, with
one being in the liquid and the other in the gas.  Mike McKubre's data
show clearly that hot spots can and do exist in closed cells, and I
still haven't seen a serious challenge to my proposal that that can
produce an apparent excess heat signal.  If the possibility exists, and
if it could be significant, it must be dealt with before conclusiveness
of the work can be concluded.

Happy Holidays!

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...and noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 09:25:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA31777;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:19:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:19:55 -0800
Message-ID: <366C0E60.5772 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:20:32 -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: artifacts in 1993 Storms data  12.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eB8-O3.0.Rm7.xu0Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Storms: Hansen: recombination artifact 12.6.98
  Date:  Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:22:28 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

I wish to focus on the following statement by Ed Storms from his recent
response:

> > When calibration is done by Joule heating, no heat is released at the
> > recombiner.  When the same calibration is done by applying electrolytic
> > current, the recombiner becomes hot. In spite of this difference in
> > temperature, the calibrations constants are the same. Recombiners do not
> > have a tricky habit as you describe. In my case, I use an external
> > recombiner in which a thermistor is located.  Any failure of the
> > internal recombiner is noticed as an increase in temperature of the
> > external recombiner.

In particular I note in the middle of this paragraph the following: "the
calibrations constants are the same."

Next I refer back to the Storms paper "Measurements of excess heat from
a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet,"
published in Fusion Technology vol 23, Mar 1993.

On page 234 figure 5 has a caption which begins "Comparison between
calibrations using normal electrolysis with a platinum cathode and with
the immersion heater."

In the text the discussion of this comparison begins near the middle of
the second column of the previous page.  The results of that comparison
are summarized by the statement:

"A slight difference between the constant obtained using the immersion
heater and that using normal electrolysis is apparent."

So I measured up the graphed data in Fig. 5 to discover that the two
calibrations differ by about 9%!  This gives us a definition, I suppose,
of just what Ed Storms considers "slight."

Let us now apply that definition to the claimed level of excess heat as
might be typical for a Storms measurement.  Suppose the input electrical
power is 40 watts and that the true calorimeter constant is 4 watts per
C.  Thus the 40 watts would result in a delta T of 10 C which we would
interpret as indicating a heat output of 40 watts and all is well with
the world. The calorimeter is indicating zero excess heat.

Now just suppose that the calibration of the calorimeter to be employed
for the measurements has a "slight" error, say it's only 3.64 watts per
C, which is by the Storms definition still to be considered slight.  In
that case the delta T of 10 C looks like a heat output of 43.6 watts, so
when we subract the 40 watts input power we are left with an excess of
3.6 watts.

If we are still operating under the Storms rules, we must consider this
excess of 3.6 watts as nothing more than "slight."  It can hardly be
definitive evidence for some new and otherwise unconfirmed form of
nuclear reaction phenomena.  In fact, once you recognize that the
calorimeter constant may wander around slightly by perhaps +/- 9% the
significance of much of the claimed "excess" begins to fade badly.

As for evidence that the constant may be slightly variable I call
attention to Fig. 11 where near the right edge of the graph there are a
number of data points for the time span extending roughly from 146 hours
to 160 hours at an electrolysis current of 0.5 A that all indicate an
excess power of - 0.2 watts.  Since that is not supposed to be
physically possible and it does not appear to be the result of random
statistical behavior I suggest that it does indicate that the
calorimeter constant has a slight error for at least that 14 hour block
of measurements.

Let's see if we can quantify that error a bit better.  I am guessing
that the input power is about 6 watts so the negative excess indicates
the heat is determined to be 5.8 watts.  This is consistant with an
error in the calibration at the 4% level.

As I understand it, Ed Storms is claiming that his calorimeteric results
are typically 40 +/- 1 watt, but that is only 2.5% relative error.  The
data, I think, indicates errors 2-4 times larger.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 11:08:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11945;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:07:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:07:15 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199812071907.NAA08144 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981207013507.009c7390 mail.eden.com> from Scott Little at "Dec 7, 98 01:35:07 am"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:07:13 -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: <"h-Ed51.0.Yw2.ZT2Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> >Given that we are 1.49E8 km from the sun, we have:
> > 0.0000218 m/s^2 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2
> >Since earth's accel is 9.8 m/s^2, the sun's accel stated in "g" at our
> >distance would seem to be 0.0000022, or 2.2E-6g.
> 
> Something went wrong above, John.  It comes out 6.08E-4g.  I've checked it
> ~10 times now.

I did do something wrong, but we still aren't agreeing.

Now I get:  6.08E-6 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2/9.8


-- 
 - 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  Mon Dec  7 11:23:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17896;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:21:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:21:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981207141553.00689ea8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:15:53 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com, mjones@jump.net
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Cooling with moist air
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DxrmP2.0.YN4.gg2Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Over the past four days Ralph Pope, Ed Wall and I have been working with
the kinetic furnace and airflow calorimetry. We are using much better
instruments and I had in November, particularly the HP 34970A data
acquisition system, which is good enough to kill for. Our results are not
encouraging. I will describe them later this week after we have had a few
more days to answer open questions. We are tired old wimps; we worked only
a half-day on Sunday. No all-nighters for us! No cots in the laboratory
(see the movie "Apollo 13"), no empty pizzas boxes littered about, or "take
away curry" boxes. [Note: Chris Tinsley said that English techies on the
job eat take-out curry. "Take away" (Brit.) = take-out (English). Soo says
the British mainly eat Indian, Chinese and other national cuisines because
their own is abominable.]

Today I am at the office because my daughter is using the car for college
classes, so I am graphing, writing up, and mulling over Results So Far.

I will talk about the kinetic furnace later. I would like to mention
something that occurred to me this morning as I was blowing my coffee. I
have learned a lot about HVAC-style airflow calorimetry, and the more I
learn the less I like it. One issue the came up was the effect of humidity
on the standard textbook formulas. The textbooks say humidity has little
effect on the heat capacity of air. You might as well stick with the 1.08
conversion factor in the formula BTU = CFM x 1.08 x degrees Fahrenheit.

Humidity has little effect, but evaporation is another matter. Suppose
there is a puddle of water hiding in the duct somewhere, or a humidifier
that sprays a mist of water into the air stream? (We have one in my house,
in the duct downstream from the furnace.) I think that would have a major
effect on the cooling capacity of the stream of air. I was thinking about
this and I suddenly remembered the configuration of the cooling tower that
Cravens used at PowerGen. The cooling chamber above the pump reservoir was
wet. You can see this from the photographs, and I noticed that when Cravens
took apart the equipment, he poured a puddle of water from the lid back
into the reservoir. As I have mentioned, the warm water splashed around as
it poured into the reservoir. I think it is likely that the tubes in the
cooling chamber were wet from the splashing water, and I'm sure that the
air must have carried off a considerable amount of vapor and droplets of
water from the splashing. I wonder if this explains the apparent large
difference between the cooling capacity of the arrangement Cravens built
compared to the one built by Mitchell Jones. I do not remember whether
Jones wet the tubes or not. If he did not and he tries it now, I expect he
will see the cooling capacity improve radically. Another issue, as I said
earlier, is that the holes at the bottom and the cylindrical shape of the
container impart a spin to the incoming air which makes it strike the tubes
many times before it exits out the top.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 11:24:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17851;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:21:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:21:11 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981207123743.00689990 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:37:43 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Hansen and Murray arguments are innumerate
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4W_rS2.0.nM4.dg2Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rich Murray writes:

	Dear all, I again want to congratulate and thank Ed Storms for
	his lucid, courteous, detailed, and prompt responses in this
	debate.  I tend to agree with Scott Little's recent post, that
	calorimetry is so fraught with subtle errors that typical excess
	heats in the range of >=20% are hard to accept as proof of a
	nuclear energy source, especially when events are rare, there is
	as yet no reliable replication, and no convincing proof of
	nuclear products, radiations, or obvious reaction sites.

Storms and Hansen are debating heat losses from the electrical leads and
other factors which have been extensively modeled and measured in actual
experiments. This is described in the calorimetric literature and by
leading researchers such as McKubre. These losses have been shown to be
much less than 20 milliwatts, whereas typical cold fusion 20% excess heat
would range from 200 milliwatts to 2 watts, for the 10 to 20 watt input
typical of McKubre or Storms. Hansen and Murray are confusing 20% with
0.002%. Their arguments fail quantitatively by a very wide margin.

In the best cold fusion experiments the success rates vary from 50 to 100%,
such as six out of six runs at Mitsubishi. To call these events "rare" is
absurd. The proof of nuclear products is convincing to those who understand
the operation of mass spectrometers, especially helium detectors, and
tritium detectors.

Little's experiments have no bearing on the discussion or conclusions,
because he has never attempted to replicate the techniques or conditions
described by Storms, Fleischmann, McKubre et al. His contributions, while
excellent, have been solely to designs for low-cost, relatively portable
calorimeters. These instruments are orders of magnitude less sensitive and
less reliable than those used by the experts at places like Mitsubishi, Los
Alamos, SRI and Mitsubishi. Little has measured no relevant
electrochemical, material, metallurgical or physics parameters, such as
loading, OCV, expansion, or low-level x-rays. He has not achieved anything
like the 50 to 100% reproducibility reported by others. If he can achieve
this, and consistently reproducing the effects seen elsewhere, and he can
then go on to show that the effects are artifacts caused by errors --
subtle or otherwise -- he will have a point. So far he has proved that you
can achieve remarkable accuracy with a simple, cheap calorimeter, which
should increase our confidence in the results others have achieved with
instruments costing $100,000 to $10 million.

Little says that McKubre's positive results are seen for only a few weeks
time during 20 years of null runs. The 20 years are irrelevant. During a
multi-year of experiment with an accelerator or a particle detector in a
mine shaft, a particle may appear once or twice for very brief instances.
The ratio of null time to positive result duration is many orders of
magnitude higher that it is with cold fusion, but this criterion is absurd.
It takes the workers at Mitsubishi months to prepare an experiment, yet
that experiment produces heat and x-rays for only a few weeks. This ratio
is also irrelevant. You might as well say that the Wright brothers flew for
only 98 seconds during the first three years of their research. That's 98
seconds out of the 94 million seconds between 1900 to 1903, a success rate
of only 0.01%! By Little's logic, they never flew at all. During the weeks
that McKubre's heat appears, "the effect is thus neither small nor
fleeting," as he has said many times. When the airplane is flying or the
cell is hot, you can be absolutely, positively certain the experiment is
working. The time it takes to prepare the materials (to build the motor or
load the palladium) is irrelevant.

Murray speculates:

	I wonder if rare excess heats, if real, might be due to
	inadvertent detection of weird background particles, since so
	many are currently being imagined by current supersymmetric
	theories. 

If the background particles could produce 2 watts of excess heat lasting
for many weeks in a one square centimeter area, we would be dead. There
would be no life on Earth.


	There are also psychokinetic effects, claimed plausibly in
	various experiments in parapsychology: things do mysteriously go
	bump in the night...

These phenomena do not exist.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 11:45:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA27412;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:43:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:43:20 -0800
Message-ID: <366C2FF9.6FDD earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:43:53 -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: McKubre: Storms: Shanahan: recombination artifact [11.25.98]  12.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9RYkv1.0.Ei6.N_2Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25240
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 11.25.98
  Date:  7 Dec 1998 09:35:11 U
  From:  "Mike McKubre" <mike_mckubre qm.sri.com>

All - the attached piece by Ed Storms is beautifully and kindly
reasoned. For my sins, having spent nearly 6 years closely focused on
calorimetry in the electrochemical D/Pd system, I can assert that Ed's
arguments in each case are correct, and essentially complete.  I would
add only one or two things:

1)  The reaction that occurs in an electrolysis cells between oxygen
sourced at the anode and hydrogen (or D) at the cathode is not
recombination but depolarization.  Dissolved oxygen arriving at the
cathode is reduced directly.  This is the reverse of the anode reaction
which makes the oxygen, and under all conditions the voltage driving
force is so large that the kinetics of this depolarization reaction are
essentially instantaneous. 
   The rate of recombination, H's or D's and O's making water on a
submerged Pd electrode, on the other hand, is essentially zero.  Pd is
not as good as Pt for this purpose, and a wetted surface of either metal
is simply incapable of sustaining the conditions necessary for molecular
recombination.
    Why is this distinction important (except in a mechanistic or
etymological sense)?  The maximum possible recombination rate in the
steady state obviously would consume all of the O2 produced at the anode
(this is what  we require and rely on from the dry, extended area, Pt
recombiner). Because the wet Pd surface is no more catalytic active that
the wall of the vessel (i.e. functionally zero). and is of relatively
small area, this reaction does not occur to any measurable extent!
   The  depolarization rate, on the other hand) is limited by the amount
of dissolved oxygen that can diffuse to the cathode surface.  Since O2
is sparingly soluble in water under all conditions explored (and
admitted) so far in CF experiments, this maximum rate is very low, as Ed
correctly states.  In fact, Hansen, Jones et al measured this rate
skillfully and accurately, they simply misunderstood its origins, and,
therefore, mis-extrapolated their conclusions.

2)  We have conducted several tests to determine whether the position of
the heat source could affect the measured response of our calorimeters.
Obviously one could imagine a badly designed calorimeter in which this
was a significant source of systematic error, but in our case I am
confident that it is not for the following reasons:
     a) The thermal efficiency of our mass flow calorimeter achieved
values in excess of 99% (depending on mass flow rate and operating
temperature). The effect of errors on moving the heat source must be
looked for in that last 1% !!
     b) We have modeled extensively (both analytic and finite element)
our calorimeters precisely to test and minimize the position
sensitiveness of the design.
     c) We have tested experimentally by varying the position of dummy
heat sources. There are secondary or tertiary effects in the third
decimal place but not enough to cause experimental concern.

3) Rich, when you make statements like "Kirk Shanahan has proposed a new
hypothesis for a recombination artifact that could explain most
well-known excess heat claims" I submit that you are doing a disservice
to open dialogue, to science and to common logic.  I doubt that Kirk
(whom I do not know) would make such a bold claim.  The hypothesis he is
exploring is not new (I, and others, anticipated it, explored it, tested
it, discussed it, and rejected it in 1989 and 1990).  As explained
above, the phenomenon is most assuredly not recombination, and is at
most an effect with small (and easily calculable) consequences.  Even if
present to the extent imagined by Kirk, it would produce an unmeasurably
small error in our calorimeters (which I would have thought would have
been included amongst the "best-known excess heat claims").  I invite
you to choose your words with rigor and not hyperbole.  The debate you
sponsor is useful, and fielding serious questions from inquiring minds
will help us frame our thoughts and reasoning to become more accurate
and effective in communicating our conclusions. 

  Mike McKubre
--------------------------------------
Date: 12/2/98 4:39 PM
To: Mike McKubre
From: rmforall earthlink.net


Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact 11.24.98
      Date:  Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:37:19 +0000
      From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
        To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Reply to Kirk Shanahan by Ed Storms

Kirk, while I welcome your questions and your explanation, we appear to
be talking past each other.  Certain facts exist which are not a matter
of debate.  If we are to arrive at any hope of agreement, these facts
must be acknowledged.  Otherwise we are just dancing with words.

To improve the focus, I would like to summarize, as best I can, where we
stand.

1. You propose that the apparent excess energy is caused by a change in
location for recombination within the cell. This change produces a
change in the measured delta T used to calculate the excess energy. This
model depends on several assumptions:

1. The location for recombination can change.=20
2. The change in location can affect the measured delta T.

These assumptions are answered by the following facts:

I state that recombination at the cathode is only important at low
current density, as was studied by Jones et al., and it is is not
important at high current density, as was studied by Miles. This is an
experimental fact.

I state that the availability of oxygen to the cathode is dependent on
cell design.  In my design, the amount available is small compared to
the total being produced.  This is an experimental fact.

I state that the presence or absence of heat production at the
recombiner does not change the calibration constant in my cell.  This is
an experimental fact.

>From these facts I conclude that:

1. The change in location during normal operation can only be small.=20
2. The change in delta T, produced when the location is changed on
purpose, is also small.

Therefore, no experimental evidence exists to show that your assumptions
can explain excess energy.

---
You state that some oxygen will reach the cathode.  This is a fact.=20

You state that the cathode can catalyze recombination.  The general
statement is a fact but the magnitude involves an assumption.

You state that the gas temperature is important in determining the loss
of energy from the cell.  This is a fact but the magnitude involves an
assumption.

(Because the area of wall exposed to the gas is much less than the area
exposed to the liquid, the delta T of the liquid has the greater
effect.)

>From these statements you conclude that your explanation is correct.=20
You provide no experimental fact to support the assertions.

----

I state that three calorimeter designs are immune to changes in location
of heat production. This is a fact which can be verified by reading any
book on calorimetry. (Lee Hansen is an expert. I would welcome his
comments.)

I state that each of these designs has exhibited excess energy
production.  This is an experimental fact.

>From these facts I conclude that your explanation has no general
application.

You state that these calorimeters are sufficiently sensitive to the
location of heat production.

>From this statement you conclude that these other studies are affected
by the same explanation and to the same degree without giving any
experimental evidence.=20

-----

You state that the better the calorimetry, the less heat is measured.=20
This in a myth.  It is true that some high excess energy was claimed by
some workers early in the field while using dubious calorimetry.=20
However, this statement does not apply to the work of McKubre, Miles,
Bush or myself. Other examples of good studies have been cited in my
reviews.  In every case, good, constant calorimetry was used throughout
the study, while the amount of energy depended on the source of
palladium and not on the quality of the measurement.

-----

If you disagree with the facts, as I have stated them, please show me
your evidence. If you agree, we can move on.

Experimental facts, unlike theory, have a reality in the general
world.=20
These facts can be tested and generally are based on simple, well
understood phenomenon. If we can not agree on some of the basic facts,
then any attempt to support a theory or prosaic explanation becomes
hopeless.  This is the basic problem I=92m having with Rich and Dick as
well. If we can not get past this problem, further discussion is
pointless.  It is one thing to be an advocate as is a lawyer defending a
client.  It is a much different and more useful process to search for
the truth in a spirit of cooperation and trust.  I personally prefer the
latter method, but I seem to be forced into the former.

I plan to take the next month to study these debates and read some
papers.  I hope you all will do the same. Perhaps we can resume the
discussion after Christmas.  I hope you all will have holidays worth
remembering with joy.         Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 11:51:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA30267;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:51:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:51:04 -0800
Message-ID: <366C31CD.14B9 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:51:41 -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  12.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BF5ww.0.rO7.e63Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25241
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Storms: Little: Blue: CF debate 12.4.98
  Date:  Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:49:47 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Anyone who has ever been involved in attempts to make difficult
experimental measurements knows just what the frustrations
experienced by cold fusion investigators are like.  Things
happen for which you have no explanation and over which you
seemingly have no control.  Chaos reigns.

An "effect" may appear and then disappear into the jumble of
random results.  In a low-rate nuclear reaction study, for
example, the pulse-height spectrum may exhibit what appears
to be a clearly separated peak precisely where you were hoping
to find it, but as more counts accumulate the separations between
groups of counts may gradually disappear as the spectrum fills
in to become an uninteresting blur.

You may ascribe the blurring of the spectrum to electronic drift
or a rise in background, things you can hope to correct before
you launch another attempt at a measurement; but it may simply
be true that the phenomenon you are seeking does not exist and
nothing you can do will change that fact.

In the case of cold fusion calorimetry, there is a clear alternative
course of experimentation to be considered.  Rather than to allow
the energy released to be degraded into the thermal bath of the
lattice where all the phonons look alike, why not seek to discover
those unusual events that produce that heat before the energy is
degraded and lost in the chaos?

Now, instead of seeking to improve the experimental protocol with an
aim toward gaining a way to make more definitive measurements, the
cold fusion advocates adopted a mind set which insists that the
limitations of their experiments have nothing to do with the
apparent lack of success.  Instead they insist that the problem
lies with the variability of the material deamed essential for
the effect through some unknown and undetectable physical property.

I fear, however, that they are locked into a hopeless downward spiral
in which the clues they latch onto are generally meaningless artifacts.
Believing that this or that variation in experimental protocol has
yielded some improvement in results, they adopt that new mythology
into their gospel and plow ahead.

For nine long years we have followed this behavior, pointing out many
obvious clues that all is not well with these investigations.  Rather
than seeing, as I do, that the signs indicate that cold fusion is
not "real", the believers can always chalk this up the very special
nature of the phenomenon itself.

Thus it is that no experimental test can ever disprove that there
is a CANR process.  Any null result that is recognized will simply
be used to redefine what the process is and to explain why this
phenomenon goes undetected, even though, for some, it is very real.

I have been suggesting that this approach has not worked.  It hasn't
yielded anything of value.  No one has gotten better at inducing
the effect.  And in spite of jabber about proprietary information,
patents, etc. no one is making real progress.  Patterson can't even
make his magic beads anymore!  That is real progress!

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 12:00:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01858;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:58:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:58:21 -0800
Message-ID: <006401be221b$3df9e040$8b441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <mjones@jump.net>
Subject: Re: Cooling with moist air
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:53:15 -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: <"sQosp2.0.eS.SD3Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25242
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
To: vortex-L eskimo.com <vortex-L@eskimo.com>; mjones@jump.net
<mjones jump.net>
Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: Cooling with moist air

Jed wrote:

Snip Snip regarding evaporative  cooling effects.

You could use a wet "wick" on a thermometer, along with a "dry bulb"
thermometer to see how this compares with room air.

Regards,      Frederick


>
>- Jed
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 12:00:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01900;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:58:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:58:23 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981207145350.00697fe8 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:53:50 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Rothwell also innumerate
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bY24C.0.VT.UD3Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25243
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In my previous message I wrote:

"That's 98 seconds out of the 94 million seconds between 1900 to 1903, a
success rate of only 0.01%!"

That should be 0.0001% - one part in a million. Hey, I am innumerate too,
but at least I admit it. Anyway, by the Skeptics Standard it never
happened. Dick Blue also misunderstands simple numbers, errors and
proportionality in his latest description of the Storms work. You do not
look for maximum error at low power and extrapolate it to all power levels.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 12:06:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04379;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:04:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:04:18 -0800
Message-ID: <366C34D6.5E7C earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:04:38 -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: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  12.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cv4Js.0.H41.1J3Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25244
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 12.4.98
      Date:    Tue, 08 Dec 1998 11:40:10 -0500
      From:    chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:    rmforall earthlink.net

Scott Chubb answers Dick Blue

>Sorry, I did not make myself clear on this point.  Of course there are
>observations relating to the supposed CF phenomena which are in
>agreement with your theoretical modeling of the process.  What I would
>hope is that at some point your theory could address observations which
>deal more directly with questions of quantum coherence, etc.  

The theory does in fact do this with respect to two areas that
superficially appear to be not directly related to CF:

1.  The anomalous shift in super-conducting critical temperature that
accompanies D for H substitution in PdHx at x=1,         and 

2.  The anomalous increase in diffusivity that occurs when D is
substituted for H  over a continuous range of loadings in PdHx.

These effects, taken by themselves, are driven by electromagnetic
interactions.  However, because they are explained by periodic order,
quantum coherence, and the bosonic (as opposed to fermionic) character
of D, they provide evidence that in PdDx (PdHx), D+ (H+) nuclear centers
can be treated as fundamental band state-like "particles" (actually
waves), and that these waves may interact coherently with the solid. 
These effects, by themselves, do not constitute direct evidence that
interactions between these waves can occur coherently.  This is a new,
extension of existing theory that we have introduced.

>I don't happen to agree with you that the wide assortment of CF claims
>actually, in detail, the predictions of your model.  Dependence on
>crystal size, for example, is hardly well established experimentally.

Critical crystal size dependence has not been established.  But there is
important evidence in support of the idea that crystal structure does
play a role.  The Arata-Zhang results are consistent with the critical
crystal size (and optimal heating modes predicted by the model) of the
theory.

>I don't know where you got the notion that nuclear physicists, in
>general, or me in particular treat the strong interactions and
>electromagnetic interactions as "separable."  

In this context, I was referring to the separability between
electromagnetic and nuclear interactions that occurs in conventional D+D
Gamow theory Fusion.  It is of course true that in free space the
D+D->4He interaction, a Gamma ray is emitted, and it is here that I did
not make myself clear.  In particular, you are quite correct in
asserting that in the context of this reaction, the electromagnetic and
nuclear interactions are not treated as being separable.  And this gets
to a very important point associated with the theory and the assumed
physics.  In the "collision" problem that gives rise to overlap, in
conventional nuclear physics the D+D electromagnetic and nuclear
interactions are separable.  In particular, it is assumed that overlap
occurs, and once overlap occurs, a coupled electromagnetic-nuclear
scenario results that leads to the dissipation of energy.  In the decay
portion of the interaction, which occurs on fermi-level energy scales,
in particular, the strong and electromagnetic interactions are not (and
cannot) be treated as being separable.  On the other hand, in the
"collision" portion of the problem, especially when the incident
energies are less than ~1 MeV, nuclear physicists do (and are allowed to
treat) the two forms of interaction as being separable.

>I think you are wrong on
>this point.  
>I certainly would never attempt to treat the
>deuteron-deuteron interaction that way because it is quite clear from
>experimental observations that the coupling between these two has a
>profound influence on low-energy reaction processes.  

As I said, Gamow theory is used to describe the "collision" portion of
the process.  This can also be viewed as describing the portion of the
process that gives rise to an initial state in which overlap occurs.  It
is in this context that I was referring to separability.  

In illucidating this point to you, however, I have come across an
important additional point associated with the theory:  in the coherent
processes associated with the theory, non-separable coupling between the
electromagnetic and nuclear interactions in the subsequent decay
channels can only occur in a way that, to an excellent approximation,
involves photons that coherently resonate with the solid (through the
condition that photon frequency= Reciprocal lattice vector x c, c=speed
of light).

>Perhaps confusion has to do with precisely which source terms for the
>electromagnetic interaction are considered and which are separated.  I
>suspect that you have not sorted out various contributions according to
>their strength.

The "confusion" is semantical in nature.  I was not fully illucidating
the distinction between the overlap process (where it is allowed to
treat the interactions as being separable) from the "decay" process,
where, as you point out, it is simply incorrect to assume separability.

>>The claim is that the dependence of the strong interaction on the
>> difference between the centers of mass of proton-neutron pairs (for
>> example, pn12-pn34=(r1+r2-r3-r4)*.5, and pn14-pn32.5*(r1+r4-r3-r2)) can
>> not be treated as being separable from the electromagnetic interaction.
>> This is because large amounts of momentum can be imparted locally as a
>> result resonant coherence resulting from periodic order.
>

>I am indeed puzzled by this and am beginning to wonder whether your
>"no latent heat" condition" is not covering something very significant
>to this discussion.  

This is an important element of the discussion.  The requirement of "no
latent heat" leads to the result that the only electromagnetic coupling
can not change the energy of the system.  And this occurs when the only
allowed photons are always trapped within the solid through coherent
processes, and their energies always are approximately equal to hbar x
Reciprocal Lattice Vector x c   (c=speed of light).

>Just what is included in "latent heat" and why
>is it significant to your model?  The reason I ask is that I sense that
>something is missing from you description of 4He above relative to
>how I would expect 4He to be described.  What I have not seen in your
>comments is a clear statement of how you address differences in total
>potential energy for the various configurations?  Is that somehow
>related to the "no latent heat" condition?  If it is, you are being
>pretty darned sneaky.
>

There is a coupling between the strong and electromagnetic interactions.
The difference in energy that results from the decay of the "excited"
strong interaction nucleus is "carried away" by resonant photons
(possessing energies given by hbar x reciprocal lattice vector x c),
which are absorbed coherently by electrons, again resonantly (with no
energy release within the crystal).  Because the crystal has a finite
boundary, the process of coherently absorbing the associated photon
momentum results in a coherent redefinition of the energy (and momentum)
zero of the crystal lattice relative to its boundary, and this leads to
energy dissipation.

>> In fact, it is only necessary (and in fact required) to include the
>> Bloch symmetry in the dependence in one of the two differences
>> (pn12-pn32 or pn14-pn32).  But it is necessary to include this
>> dependence in order to account for the fact that as a result of resonant
>> coherent interaction from periodic order, the electromagnetic and strong
>> interactions can become coupled (because the electromagnetic interaction
>> can impart huge amounts of momentum locally) in a non-separable way.
>
>Could you be more specific on this point?  What accounts for this
>coupling, and can you describe it in terms of a multipole expansion
>which is something to which I can more generally relate?

Yes--the multipole expansion is a many-centered expansion.  It involves
spherical waves (Neumann functions) muliplied by multipoles, which,
analogous to the kind of expansion that one encounters in multiple
scattering problems in solids (for example in the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker
method used in Band State Physics), involves periodically displaced
spaced centers.  In this context, it is allowable to apply the small
radius expansion about each center.  A distinguishing feature, however,
is that tail contributions (which are Bessel function like) introduce
scattering that extends throughout the periodic solid.  These tails give
rise to the resonant behavior I described.

>> This dependence simply is not included in conventional nuclear physics.
>> In the model we are proposing, it is.  In practice, there is a simply
>> way of handling this; it involves quite literally saying that the
>> reaction (i.e., the change in the zero of kinetic energy) is distributed
>> coherently throughout the solid, while computing the "effective strong
>> force" interaction, using conventional nuclear physics, and coupling the
>> energy to the lattice by shifting the zero of kinetic energy of the
>> lattice relative to its boundary.  The reason this prescription works
>> and is unique is because it maintains the Born-Oppenheimer separability
>> of the wave functions and the separability of the nuclear and
>> electromagnetic interactions.
>
>Please tell me about changes in the zero of potential energy as we move
>from having two deuterons to having one 4He.  

As I said, coupling to photons through coherent resonant processes is
responsible for changing the zero of potential energy.  In other words,
the decay is through these photons, and these photons are coherently
absorbed. That these are the dominant photons results from the
requirements that energy be minimized, periodic order be maintained and
that there be no latent heat.

>I also am still puzzled
>as to how you can put the neutrons several unit vectors away from the
>protons and not have them interacting with other nucleons in the
>lattice. 

Each "neutron" is never more than several fermi's from a proton.

>Well, it is virtually impossible to establish that anything "enhances"
>the Cold Fusion effect, when no one can even establish a level against
>which such enhancements may be judged.  Has anyone demostrated a simple
>binary effect?  You know, magnet on, magnet off with the power level
>responding immediately and dramatically?  I would think that anything
>like that would move to publication with some dispatch such that we
>would not have to speculate about what you have heard.

The relevant magnetic effect involves flipping D+ spins, which would be
accomplished in an NMR type of experiment.  The "enhancement" I
suggested is tied to the potential for an anisotropic response that is
similar in spirit to your suggestion of "a magnet on"/"magnet on" form
of experiment. In particular, I suggested that it would be useful to
orient the DC magnetic field in the NMR experiment in a direction that
is predominantly perpendicular to the surface (or surfaces) of crystals
within the electrode, followed by a second experiment in which this
field is oriented essentially parallel to the surface.  The theory
suggests that in the second experiment, there is a greater probability
of obtaining excess heat and 4He.

>> Phrases like "stumbled into the wrong camp when you allied yourself"
>> don't really serve a useful purpose.  Why not leave off the entire last
>> sentence of this comment?
>
>I'll leave off such comments if you will promise never to drop
>Schwinger's name into this discussion again.

Done--

>> Quantum mechanics does pay attention to coherence and periodic order.
>> Quantum mechanically, it is impossible to say how many D's are in the
>> solid, in band states, and interacting through a distributed nuclear
>> reaction, resulting from resonant coherent interaction due to periodic
>> order.
>
>I have not been questioning the significance of coherence and periodic
>order for quantum mechanics in general.  The question is whether this
>applies to the system at hand.  You perhaps indicate that it would if
>certain assumed conditions are met, but what have you done to actually
>demonstrate that your assumptions are at all reasonable?  

The assumptions are consistent with the underlying behavior of the
electrons (their band structure and the related chemistry) and some of
the the quantum transport phenomena (and anomalies) associated with H
and D, interacting with Pd.  Because the theory also explains some of
these anomalies, it has added credibility.  The big, new step is to
extend some of these ideas to the idea of resonant, coherent nuclear
reactions of the form that I have discussed.

>Now my
>approach has been to try to determine just what it is that you think
>provides a mechanism for a silent, undetectable transition from deuteron
>pairs to 4He.  I don't find anything in the many transmissions that
>deals with, for example, energy differences between the two systems. 

I hope my discussion of the electromagnetic interaction in the present
communication clarifies this.

>Yet, that clearly is at the heart of the matter.  I ask that you tell us
>when and where the transition occurs, and how you know that it does
>occur.  Do you have "before" and "after" wave functions?  What precisely
>is the potential for which each of said wave functions is an appropriate
>eigenstate, and how do you know that?

Because the photons are coherently absorbed and transmitted, the
electromagnetic portion of the decay can be treated by simply describing
the behavior of the electrons.  This is the origin of the coherent
redistribution of charge that we have talked about.  We have treated the
the nuclear reaction physics using nuclear well that adequately
represents nuclear matter, through a nucleus of mass 8 (which is used to
mimic 8Be*).

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 12:17:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10348;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:14:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:14:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981207141425.009dbe80 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:14:25 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <199812071907.NAA08144 mirage.skypoint.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19981207013507.009c7390 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RZlYV.0.cX2.8S3Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25245
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:07 PM 12/7/98 -0600, John Logajan wrote:
>Scott Little wrote:
>> >Given that we are 1.49E8 km from the sun, we have:
>> > 0.0000218 m/s^2 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2
>> >Since earth's accel is 9.8 m/s^2, the sun's accel stated in "g" at our
>> >distance would seem to be 0.0000022, or 2.2E-6g.
>> 
>> Something went wrong above, John.  It comes out 6.08E-4g.  I've checked it
>> ~10 times now.
>
>I did do something wrong, but we still aren't agreeing.
>
>Now I get:  6.08E-6 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2/9.8

I think it should be 1.49E8 km....not 14.9E8


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 Dec  7 12:30:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15379;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:26:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:26:05 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199812072026.OAA09407 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: G force
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981207141425.009dbe80 mail.eden.com> from Scott Little at "Dec 7, 98 02:14:25 pm"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:26:01 -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: <"z0MIf2.0.Dm3.Sd3Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25246
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> >> >Given that we are 1.49E8 km from the sun, we have:
> >> > 0.0000218 m/s^2 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2
> >> >Since earth's accel is 9.8 m/s^2, the sun's accel stated in "g" at our
> >> >distance would seem to be 0.0000022, or 2.2E-6g.
> >> 
> >> Something went wrong above, John.  It comes out 6.08E-4g.  I've checked it
> >> ~10 times now.
> >
> >I did do something wrong, but we still aren't agreeing.
> >
> >Now I get:  6.08E-6 = 274/(14.9E8/695,000)^2/9.8
> 
> I think it should be 1.49E8 km....not 14.9E8

Okay, that fixes it.  We both agree that it is 6.08E-4g.

-- 
 - 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  Mon Dec  7 13:45:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14372;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:42:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:42:39 -0800
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:34:28 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
cc: Vortex-L eskimo.com, Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: M. Swartz.....Re: Blue: Storms: CF debate 12.7.98
In-Reply-To: <366C31CD.14B9 earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981207163241.4122D antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"W2CdM.0.UW3.Fl4Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25247
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	My understanding is that Mitchell is getting results....
	I will let me speak to if the effect is or is not CF ...

	Q:  Mitchell has posted on the effect several times, and has 
written papers....  Why is he passed over?

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Rich Murray wrote:

> Subject: Re: Storms: Little: Blue: CF debate 12.4.98
>   Date:  Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:49:47 -0500 (EST)
>   From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>     To:  rmforall earthlink.net
> 
> Anyone who has ever been involved in attempts to make difficult
> experimental measurements knows just what the frustrations
> experienced by cold fusion investigators are like.  Things
> happen for which you have no explanation and over which you
> seemingly have no control.  Chaos reigns.
> 
> An "effect" may appear and then disappear into the jumble of
> random results.  In a low-rate nuclear reaction study, for
> example, the pulse-height spectrum may exhibit what appears
> to be a clearly separated peak precisely where you were hoping
> to find it, but as more counts accumulate the separations between
> groups of counts may gradually disappear as the spectrum fills
> in to become an uninteresting blur.
> 
> You may ascribe the blurring of the spectrum to electronic drift
> or a rise in background, things you can hope to correct before
> you launch another attempt at a measurement; but it may simply
> be true that the phenomenon you are seeking does not exist and
> nothing you can do will change that fact.
> 
> In the case of cold fusion calorimetry, there is a clear alternative
> course of experimentation to be considered.  Rather than to allow
> the energy released to be degraded into the thermal bath of the
> lattice where all the phonons look alike, why not seek to discover
> those unusual events that produce that heat before the energy is
> degraded and lost in the chaos?
> 
> Now, instead of seeking to improve the experimental protocol with an
> aim toward gaining a way to make more definitive measurements, the
> cold fusion advocates adopted a mind set which insists that the
> limitations of their experiments have nothing to do with the
> apparent lack of success.  Instead they insist that the problem
> lies with the variability of the material deamed essential for
> the effect through some unknown and undetectable physical property.
> 
> I fear, however, that they are locked into a hopeless downward spiral
> in which the clues they latch onto are generally meaningless artifacts.
> Believing that this or that variation in experimental protocol has
> yielded some improvement in results, they adopt that new mythology
> into their gospel and plow ahead.
> 
> For nine long years we have followed this behavior, pointing out many
> obvious clues that all is not well with these investigations.  Rather
> than seeing, as I do, that the signs indicate that cold fusion is
> not "real", the believers can always chalk this up the very special
> nature of the phenomenon itself.
> 
> Thus it is that no experimental test can ever disprove that there
> is a CANR process.  Any null result that is recognized will simply
> be used to redefine what the process is and to explain why this
> phenomenon goes undetected, even though, for some, it is very real.
> 
> I have been suggesting that this approach has not worked.  It hasn't
> yielded anything of value.  No one has gotten better at inducing
> the effect.  And in spite of jabber about proprietary information,
> patents, etc. no one is making real progress.  Patterson can't even
> make his magic beads anymore!  That is real progress!
> 
> Dick Blue
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 14:32:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01019;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:31:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:31:06 -0800
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:22:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Eddy current losses.....Re: Brown's nuclear battery
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981204230735.0114f99c popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981207164559.4122F antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"LDkGE2.0.nF.gS5Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25248
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	Everyone should go to a library and check out a book on 
principles of transformer design....  it would help a LOT in discussions 
of the conversions of electricity to magnetism and VV.

	On eddy currents in materials at room temperature.

	This isa GENERAL and Brief discussion:

	a] if a magnetic field field is Time Variant Magnetic Field, or
abbreviated TVMF, eddy currents can be induced in conducting materials
nearby... also called Foucault Currents and circulating currents.  They
tend to resemble circular 'whirlpool-like' distributions.

	b] a TVMF is a magntic field which varies or changes in polarity 
and-or magnitude over a period of time.   For discussion let us roughly 
call out some time ranges,

1]	ELF	=  ~ 50 and 60 cps
2]	LF 	=  ~ 300 to 3,000 .... telephone audio range
3]	MF	=  ~ 1,000 to 10,000 cps
4]	HF	=  ~ 10,000 to 1 meg cps .... and up...

	These are my arbitrary ranges and only listed for this discussion 
... which, bear in mind, is a brief and limited discussion.

	c] TVMF can be the result of moving a magnet in space and-or 
moving a steady state electromagnet in space and-or moving a permanent 
magnet-electromagnet combination in space .... and-or varying the input 
supply to an electromagnet .... or any combination of the above AND the 
electromagnet may or may not have a core and the core may be of early any 
material or combination of materials.

	Bottom line:  TVMFs .... change with time....

	d]  Let us think of the production of eddy currents... loosley, 
at first ... as a mechanism similar to the action of an electric 
generator.... if a conductor is mover with respect to a magnet a current 
is induced in the conductor.

	e]  Now let us consider, roughly and briefly, some of the issues 
facing the designer of a transformer.  Windings are of insulated copper, 
considered non-magntic for this discussion and the core is silicon-iron 
alloy steel.
	A current flowing through a resistance can exhibit heating.... 
this is considered a loss in transformer design.  Copper windings exhibit 
heating.   
	Let us now say the transformer is driven by ELF... at 60 cps ... 
	Currents are induced in the core material.... and it gets warm or 
hot.  If we can increase the innate resistance of the core material ... 
but still retain good permeability ...then we can have a more efficient 
transfomer....  
	How do we do this?
	One way it to make the core of the transformer out of very thin 
layers ... called laminations... and insulate the laminations from one 
another.   The isulation can and has been lacquer or an oxide coating.

  
	In general ferromagnetic materials used as cores for transformers 
are poorer conductors than the conductors used as windings for the 
transformer.




	e]  now let us consider the above.....

	Yes.  Eddy currents ARE losses.  Usually expressed mostly as heat.

	BUT:  Reading a book on transformer design will give the reader a 
much better picture.


	

	
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

> Hi;
> 
> 
> At 02:28 PM 12/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >At 02:22 PM 12/4/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
> >>I believe eddy current losses only occur in magnetic materials.
> 
> 
> >  Nope.
> >  Eddy currents are induced in electrically conducting
> >bodies by variations in magnetic flux density.
> >
> >  The variations in magnetic flux density can be caused by
> >a time varying magnetic field (or a spatially varying magnetic
> >field with movement - see: convective derivative)
> >
> >  Sometime called "Foucault currents" in very old literature.
> >  Hope that helps.
> 
> 
> Yes but are these Foucault currents losses? The electronics dictionary
> mentions the losses are in magnetic materials. It looks like there are eddy
> currents and there are eddy current losses.
> 
> 
> Regards;
> Dennis
> 
> 
> Tall Ships
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html
> 
> 
> Concentric Tori
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 18:07:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA21745;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <366C88AC.32E4 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 19:02:20 -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: Murray: Swartz critique  10.31.97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0oU5B1.0.gJ5.IY8Rs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25249
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  First Swartz Critique & more artifacts
       Date:   Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:47:24 -0600
       From:   Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization:  Room For All

Halloween, 1997

Dear all,   Here I am raising questions re "Consistency of the Biphasic
Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid-State Anomalous Phenomena With the
Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading Into a Material,"
Mitchell R. Swartz, JET Energy Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 81135,
Wellesley Hills, MA 02181, [mica world.std.com], 617-237-3625, Fusion
Technology, 33, Jan., 1997, 63-74.  This briefly describes experiments
with a closed, static calorimeter with a recombiner for electrolysis
from Pt anode to Ni cathode in light water.  Reference #8 is Swartz,
"The Relationship Between Input Power and Enthalpic Behavior of Nickel
Cathodes During Light Water Electrolysis, submitted for publication to
Fusion Technology.

The field of light water-nickel electrolysis reminds me of the wreckage
of Star Fleet, scattered through space, after the Borg attack.  Swartz
has arrived at the scene like the Enterprise, almost the only survivor. 
Can he prevail, when so many have failed-- months ago, I jotted with my
red ballpoint, "References 1 to 7-- all bad."   

Unusual care is taken to deal with artifacts.  Appropriate for this day,
"A light green-colored nickel colloid (which settles over hours) was
observed to follow anodic polarization of the nickel electrodes.  By
allowing anodic polarization to continue for days, this voluminous gel,
possibly consistent with nickel oxide and/or nickel hydroxide, was
collected.  This colloid material is capable of interfering with
measurements because it may be able to store electrochemical energy and
may contribute additional conduction polarization and other effects..."
Green ichor?  In my experiment?  Kidding aside, this got me to
thinking-- or whatever it is that "pathological skeptics" do with their
minds-- how many kinds of gels like this are there?  Would they clog up
the pipes in flow systems, causing weaker pumps to slow down, reducing
the flow rate, leading to higher delta T and spurious excess power?  In
a static system, would they either create by insulation or conduction
channels of electric power flow, creating hot spots on the electrodes,
and/or hot streams of electrolyte flow that could impinge upon the
location of the thermister, creating a local high T signal?  The
build-up of complex gels, foams, and deposits could over various time
scales create artifacts, including thermal stratification layers in the
cell, that would vary with current, flow rate, pressure, temperature,
and the phase of the moon, for all I know.  Foams and bubbles popping at
the surface of the electrolyte can spray deposits over the top of the
cell, allowing any minute leaks in wires to generate unsuspected current
flows, generating ohmic heating and apparent excess energy.

What a total drag! It takes fantastic, expensive, and demanding
attention to detail to check for all such possible artifacts.  Yet only
by considering them ahead of time, can experiments be evolved that
cleanly and reliably prove anomalous energy, and that can be
replicated.  This isn't the fault of the true believers or the
pathological skeptics.  This is science, neh?

Yesterday, Tom Droege posted:

Read the papers by McKubre in the 1st and 2nd cold fusion conference
proceedings.  They list a lot of the problems in doing flow calorimetry.
Many much more subtle than the ones you list below.  For example, one 
uses several thermisters.  But there may be stratification in the
temperature of the flowing liquid.  Which thermister is the correct
one?  How do you combine flow rate and temperature from now many
thermisters to measure the actual delta t in the flowing liquid.  I
built several true delta t measuring devices made from two aluminum
blocks and a thermoelectric device.  I provided one to Jed Rothwell, and
another to the guy in Minnisota (can't think of the name).  These
devices were the equivalent to the mean of 256 thermocouples measuring
the delta t between the incoming and outgoing fluid.  Note that a
differential device is much better than two temperature devices.  If you
use two separate temparature devices, then they have to track perfectly
over temperature or else you will get a delta t measurement that is
dependant on temperature.  A very easy error to give a positive result. 
As the temperature goes up there can be a + or a - tracking error.  If
it it + then just an increase in temperature will give a positive
result."

Swartz: "Silicate deposition has been hypothesized to create a false
positive of excess heat;  elementary analysis reveals that it can
provide heat but not excess heat under normal conditions, and
furthermore, silicates were not present here."  The prudent skeptic is
merely aroused to wonder what possible contaminants might lurk in the
witch's brew that inevitably stews after days and weeks of operation of
any electrolysis.  The only safeguard would be to repeatedly do exact
chemical surveys and inspection of the system's innards, taking nothing
for granted.  Shouldn't all systems be visually open?  How else check
for suds, foams, and bubbling?  Yet, "The experiments were conducted in
the dark when possible. The enthalpy of visible and infrared
electromagnetic radiation has not been previously discussed, although it
may be significant.  Therefore it was excluded from these studies." 
Thanks, Mitch, I never thought of that!  How big can this artifact be?

"In the absence of pump use, there was negligible electromagnetic
interference (EMI) of any significance relative to the excess power
levels under consideration and reported here.  This was directly
measured...peak available power levels...of 10 micro watt.  This power
is two order of magnitude below the lowest noise levels here and is of
no significance."  I suppose acoustic energy also would not be a
significant artifact.

Swartz's five-ring calorimeter is complex, and only a schematic diagram
is given.  For evaluation, we need such details as exact dimensions and
locations.  There is no stirrer in the central electrolysis cell.  At
the low current densities used, ~2 X 10exp-5 to 10exp-2 A/cm2, would
there be enough bubbling to prevent thermal stratification?  Runs were
done with distilled water and with ordinary water-- why on earth was
ordinary water used?

"The lumped parameter electrical resistivity of the aqueous solution was
1667 ohm-cm; however, controlled bubbling results in calculated
impedances as high as ~12,000 ohm-cm."  This sounds to me like another
candidate for an artifact: resistance varies with the amount of
bubbling.

"When careful observation is made of some samples of nickel under
controlled low-to-moderate current density, cathodic conditions excess
heat is observed...in greater amounts than that which occurred for the
ohmic controls...power amplification in the range 1.44
+-0.58...2.27+-1.02...power densities...0.088+-0.053 W/cm2."
Notice the word, "some"-- how many samples were run?  At a 5%
significance level, one out of 20 results is by chance fluctuation.  So,
picking and choosing from complex sets of data can find some striking
results to focus on.  Hopefully, Swartz will lay out the data in full in
his forthcoming paper.  I am worried that the +- error range is so large
for each value.  Similarily, Fig. 2 and 3 show "thermal background
peaks" up to .01 and .1 watt respectively for hours with no input
power-- I wonder what the cause is, actual heat excursions, or
measurement artifacts?  Also, the control ohmic heating resistors are
necessarily located differently than the cathode with respect to the
thermister.  The electrical resistance of the leads was also
considered.  

A control run with Pt anode and Pt cathode gave "recovered power
ratios...comparable to noise...1.19+-0.37."  "Neither iron nor aluminum
[cathodes] demonstrated excess heat."
 
It is wonderful, and all too rare to find control runs.  However, the
controls necessarily differ in both their chemical and their nuclear
properties.  Artifacts can certainly vary according to the chemistry of
the cathode.  So what is proven, after all?  No blaim here-- it's a fact
that we all face, that these simple electrolytic systems are
surprisingly complex.  What do we know, after nine years?  We know that
we don't know.

Fig. 4 tries to support the conclusion that "power amplification
factor," Pout/Pin, drops from about 3.5 to about 1.5, as "applied
transsample potential" goes from 11 to 51 volts.  But at .6 V, there are
ten points, ranging from about 1.1 to 3.5, from a "spiral nickel
cathode".  I don't understand that.  "Figure 4 is a graph showing the
output of the nickel cathodes and a control as a function of logarithmic
applied voltage."  This relationship could result from a well-known
artifact: thermal stratification.  At low voltages, there could be a
stable hot layer at the location of the thermister.  At higher voltages,
bubbling would stir the cell and smooth out the measured temperature.
Who knows?  Well, it's Halloween.  The Shadow knows.

So, again, years of careful work by an unusually competent, careful
researcher, and what is proven?  Drowning in data stew, grasping at
fickle patterns in the random bubbling?  Overall, having examined many
studies carefully for a year, I feel sad.
       
Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 18:20:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA14497;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0800
Message-ID: <366C8C3A.20D6 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 19:17:30 -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: Ni-H2O  wreckage & Ragland ruin  11.1.97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nfGdp3.0.RY3.Um8Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25250
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:  Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin
 Resent-Date:  Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:00:57 -0800
Resent-From:   vortex-l eskimo.com
       Date:   Sat, 01 Nov 1997 17:01:02 -0600
       From:   Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
 Organization: Room For All

Nov. 1, 1997   Dear all,

Yesterday, I wrote re Swartz's report:

The field of light water-nickel electrolysis reminds me of the wreckage
of Star Fleet, scattered through space, after the Borg attack.  Swartz
has arrived at the scene like the Enterprise, almost the only survivor. 
Can he prevail, when so many have failed-- months ago, I jotted with my
red ballpoint, "References 1 to 7-- all bad."   

Swartz responded with a fair question:

  Though I am neither a great fan of Star Trek or acupuncture to which
Mr. Murray takes fond interest, I have reviewed the references #1-7,
and Mr. Murray's comments are IMO more glib than supported by fact.

 Would like to know what Mr. Murray's credentials are to handwave
dismiss seven independent investigations that passed peer review?

 Also, in addition to references 1-7, additional nickel excess heat has
been confirmed by NASA and by two separate labs at MIT where the
investigators have not published their work.

Murray:  I am clearly unqualified in terms of education, employment, and
experience.  So, my critiques can only stand on their intrinsic value. 
My basic strategy is to examine the myriad details in the reports, and
also to gather ideas from other critics, not all of whom are hostile to
cold fusion.  A year ago, I was naively enthusiastic, and attended the
Second International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. 
Gradually, I have found that a strategy of always looking for artifacts
is operationally very productive.  I am still hoping to find a
paradigm-popping breakthrough, and certainly have no lifelong allegiance
to existing scientific views.  I like the Chubb theory, but it's
beginning to look to me like a solution without a problem.   

It is necessary in playing the scientific game to assume the mindset
that criticism is not attack, but is invaluable support, is not
rejection, but is true appreciation in the most practical form possible,
in our common quest for useful, actual truth.

Five of Swartz's references were included in a powerful theoretical and
experimental criticism by Zvi Shkedi et all (1995) [abstracts below].
These five are, along my comments on some of them:

#1. RL Mills & SP Kneisys (1991):  Claims by Mills are tainted by a
unique crank "Theory of Everything", always a fatal symptom.  The
well-known NASA replication by JM Niedra et al (Feb., 1996) admittedly
did not allow for spurious excess heat from possible recombination.
Mills, having funded his Blacklight Power with over ten million dollars,
no longer seems to be pursuing electrolysis work.

#2. VC Noninski (1991)

#3. R Notoya, Y Noya, T Ohnishi (1993,1994)

#6. RT Bush & RD Eagleton (1994):  I quote from my recent post:

Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo et al: SIMmer data stew for dubious brew
October 19, 1997:

R Bush and R Eagleton, "Evidence for Electrolytically Induced
Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in
Electrolytic Cells with Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes," Trans.
Fusion Technology, Dec., 1994, 26, p. 344-54, has a more adaquate pyrex
closed cell with an internal platinum black recombiner, at 1.0 mA/cm2,
but gives no data about the run history, except to say that the total
excess heat for Cell 53 is (4.0 +- 0.8) X 10exp19 MeV.  He does give
four SIMS graphs:  for mass 57 vs 56 we, after the obligatory doubling
of the graphs via zerox, find pre-run values, about 60,000 to 300,000,
ratio .2,  and post-run, 200 to 6,000, ratio .03.  So, the pre-run ratio
is many times more anomalous than the post-run.  Now, that's efficient
research!  No need to even run the electrolysis!  This is a much more
significant result than the claimed transmutation of rubidium to
strontium, eh?  

#7 M. Srinivasan et al (1992, 1993)

These last two references were not listed by Shkedi, for good reason:

#5 T. Matsumoto (1990, 1993):  Surely one of the most creative theorists
in the field-- I shall never forget his photographs of
"Mini-Black-Holes".

#4 T Ohmori & M Enyo (1993):  Again I will quote at length from my
recent post:

A number of remarkable electrolytic transmutation reports have been
given by a group of researchers at Hokkaido University.  I will examine
these by focussing on a recent work by T Ohmori, M Enyo, T. Mizuno, Y
Nodasaka, and H Minagawa, "Transmutation in the Electrolysis of Light
Water-- Excess Energy and Iron Production in a Gold Electrode," Fusion
Technology, March, 1997, 31, p. 210-218.  It derives from earlier work,
T Ohmori and M Enyo, "Excess Heat Evolution During Electrolysis of H2O
With Nickel, Gold, Silver, and Tin Cathodes," Fusion Technology, Nov.,
1993, 24, p. 293-295.  I will call these "Transmutation" and "Excess".

I spent some days picking over "Excess" in November, 1995, five years
ago, finding so many flaws that I left a message on Ed Storms' answering
machine suggesting that it might be a deliberate hoax.  Even the
abstract has a typo, confusing K2CO3 as K2SO4.  Apparent excess heats
were claimed from 0.2 to 26%. No attempts were made to determine the
loading, if any, in the unusual cathode metals.

With a low current density of 8.3 to 25 mA/cm2, the runs fall into the
range thoroughly debunked by Zvi Shkedi et al, Bose Corp., "Calorimetry,
Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells, Fusion
Technology, Nov., 1995, 28, p. 1720-31.  They did not even bother to
cite "Excess" in their 15 references.

Shkedi ran four light-water Ni cells at 180 to 600 mA for up to 4 days a
run with an average power accuracy of 0.6 mW.  All released H2 and O2
were carefully recombined and returned to the cells.   Assuming 100 %
Faraday efficiency, as did most studies of this reaction, he found
apparent excess power of 15 to 37 %, reduced to zero when the actual
recombination efficiency was factored in.  Shkedi also ran, but did not
describe in detail, 154 palladium D2O cells, with the same null results.

Confirming was a report by JE Jones et all at Brigham Young U.,
"Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100 % during Electrolysis of Water Can
Account for Reports of Excess Heat in "Cold Fusion" Cells," J. Physical
Chem., 1995, 99, p. 6973-79.  They also did not cite "Excess" in their
20 references. They used low current densities of 1-2 mA/cm2.  "Excess",
as did other similar studies, seemed to find more excess heat with K2CO3
than with Na2CO3.  Jones wrote on page 6978:

"In agreement with a recent report (20) showing that different
electrolytes produce differing bubble sizes in aqueous solution, our
experiments show that the difference between NaCO3 and K2CO3 as
electrolytes probably is due to differences in interfacial properties of
the solutions at the electrodes.  The H2 bubbles were smaller when K2CO3
was the electrolyte than when Na2CO3 was the electrolyte in the same
cell.  Smaller bubbles allow better mobility of gases in the electrolyte
and contact between the electrolyte and the electrode surface, thus
allowing more frequent reaction of dissolved gases.  When detergent was
aded to the Na2CO3 electrolyte, the bubbles became much smaller, did not
adhere to the electrode, and resulted in about the same rate of apparent
excess heat as was observed with the K2CO3 electrolyte."

This shows how subtle and unexpected the artifacts can be in these
deceptively simple experiments.

"Transmutation", submitted Jan. 29,1996, blindly builds on this sandy
foundation.  Five fused quartz (SiO2) cells were run a week at 1 A
between Pt mesh anode and Au cathodes, 5 or 10 cm2 area, with Na2So4,
K2CO3, KOH, K2SO4, or H2SO4 electrolytes, a current density of 100-200
mA/cm2.  Page 211, "The counter electrode was a 1 X 7 cm 80-mesh
platinum net...The working and the counter electrodes were placed at the
bottom of the cell to minimize the temperature gradient in the
electrolyte solution by vigorously stirring with H2 and O2 bubbles
evolved from these electrodes."

Hardly a more ideal set-up for promoting recombination and reducing
Faradaic efficiency could hardly be devised.  Of course, they found
apparent excess heats of 4 to 22%.  Page 212,

"Measurement of the current efficiency was made repeatedly at a given
time during the electrolysis, the result of which was 100.6, 100.1, and
101.1%.  This fact shows that there is no conceivable possibility of the
recombination of H2 and O2 as another cause of the excess energy
production."  Interestingly, they found about the same results for
Na2SO4 and K2CO3, I suppose, because of the "vigorously stirring".

More exciting, they found, (abstract) "In every case, a notable amount
of iron atoms in the range of 1.0 X 10exp16 to 1.8 X 10exp17 atom/cm2
(true area) are detected together with the generation of a certain
amount of excess energy evolution."   AES was with 3.0 keV electron beam
energy at 2.5 A current.  One of the 12 runs with Na2SO4 was graphed
twice, showing  one O, two Pt, and three Fe peaks.  They estimated Fe
atoms occupied 44% of the top surface, about 100 Au layers, exposed by 5
minutes of Ar+ ion bombardment time.  An EPMA image, scale not given,
shows the Fe was distributed uniformly over the entire electrode.  They
estimated the Fe on this electrode was ~17 micrograms.

On page 214, "Figure 8 shows the relationship between the total amount
of iron atoms and the mean Rex [excess heat] obtained in evaery
electrode/electrolyte system.  Although the data were rather scattered,
there seemed to be a linear relationship between these two parametaers. 
This strongly supports the notion that iron atom production is related
to excess energy evolution." 

This seems to me a good case of attempting to extract correlations from
random fluctuations.  One of the highest heat values has one of the
lowest values of Fe atoms.  The straight lines drawn through the points
seem very arbitrary, and for the cathode areas 5 and 10 cm2, are given
the same slope, although the input energy density is obviously half for
the larger area, implying half the slope.

Moreover, so much is left undone.  Why not a simple chemical extraction
and assey to determine the exact microgram amounts of Fe on each gold
plate?  Why not introduce controlled trace amounts of Fe into the
electrolyte to study deposition patterns and the accuracy of the
measurements?  What is the precision and sensitivity of AES in this
setting?  What might be the estimated errors of all the numbers
claimed?  Why not collect evolved H2 and O2 and recombine them to settle
the Faradaic efficiency issue?   

Now, we come to the Holy Grail of cold fusion transmutation research--
isotopic anomaly-- put in the singular, since only Fe-57, normally 2.1%
is the most substantial claim, 14.5%, seemingly a 7-fold increase.  The
usual ratio of Fe-57 to Fe-56 is 0.023 .   SIMS is used with a 12 keV,
100 nA O2+ primary beam.  Page 214, "The SIMS measurement was made with
an electrode after the electrolysis in the Na2So4 solution...spectra of
Na+, Al+, Si+, K+, Ca+, Ti+, and Cr+...Fe+.  This is probably due to the
high sensitivity of SIMS for these elements.  The spectrum of Cs+ is
attributed to a trace of cesium that remained in the vacuum chamber
itself."  So, it is not clear if this data refers to the same electrode
studied by AES.  It is not said whether SIMS was done on other plates,
and whether any such data was comparable.  Also, we know from the EPMA
image that the Fe distribution is in tiny spots.  Since SIMS operates by
vaporizing micron size areas, it is crucial to know how many spots were
studied, how they were selected, and how varied were the resulting data
sets, 1 to 200 amu.  So, clearly, we are being served a generous portion
of data stew.  Page 216,

"The isotopic content of magnesium, silicon, potassium, calcium,
titanium, chromium, and iron...Table 3...As one can see, the isotopic
contents of the elements other than iron are in agreement with these
natural isotopic abundances within the limits of error.  Therefore,
these elements can be regarded as the impurities accumulated from the
electrolyte solution."  Well, in that case, why doesn't the Fe have the
same source?  They argue that the Fe produced is "at least one to two
orders of magnitude" greater than all Fe sources in the solution and the
electrodes.  However, this production data is highly suspect, based on
estimates from AES data, not based on direct chemical extraction and
physical weighing, not checked by adding controlled Fe sources to the
electrolyte, not qualified by error estimates, and with no pre-run SIMS
scan of the cathode.

Furthermore, a huge source of impurities, including Fe, is totally
ignored, the SiO2 cells in which electrolysis operates for a week.  Jed
Rothwell in Infinite Energy #11, Nov-Dec., 1996, in a long, detailed
review of McKubre's EPRI Final Report, page 64, in the box "Fifty Sigma
Results" quotes McKubre's EPRI Perspective, 

"The conditions in the successful cells were not entirely under
experimental control because the closed cells slowly leach silica and
other materials from the anode and the cathode and its supports as well
as from the cell walls..," 

and, from the box, "Overkill Example,"

"Other solid parts are Al2O3, SiO2, and PTFE [Teflon], which are
considered in this analysis to be nonreactive."

Nonreactive?

So, indeed, in "Transmutations", the actual Fe present can readily be
accounted for by obvious impurity sources.  In a feeble way, the issue
is mentioned, page 215, "The content of the particles with mass number
54 is also increased to some extent-- perhaps because of the mixing of
Cr-54."  Table III has a footnote about Ni-58 in Fe-58.

The argument is pressed that the ratios of FeO for mass 73 and 72
confirm the ratio of mass 57 and 56, in Fig 11.   "Although the plots
are scattered, these two ratios can be seen on the whole to be in
agreement.  Therefore...not due to FeH+ formation. From this fact, one
may safely say that "heavy iron" was produced and that its production
was the result of some nuclear transmutation ocurring by the light water
electrolysis."  Whew!  We just barely got by that one!

Now, "Transmutations" does contain a veritable pot of data stew, Fig. 9,
the entire SIMS spectrum of the uppermost layers of the gold after
electrolysis in the Na2SO4 solution.  Suitably doubled by zerox, it is a
wonderful sight, a Himalayan vista, the main reason I selected this work
for study.


Prominent peaks, with notes:

Na-23 100,000 intensity counts.

Cs-133 10,000   (Ni-58)2OH?  (SiO)3H?   The Cincinatti Group's four
ICP/MS scans by Robert Liversage offer no clues.

>1,000 counts   Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe-56, TiO.  Could Fe-56 be (Si-28)2 or CaO?

>100 counts   Mg, "Fe-57", FeO, ZrO (106), Au, some others.  Could Fe-57 be (Si-28)2H or CaOH?

~50 counts   O2, Zr-90, Rh, In, Br, Kr, Pd, Xe, Gd ??  Why isn't there
more S-32 from the Na2SO4?

Given all the possibilites for diatomic molecules, hydrides, nitrides,
and oxides, there is plenty of room to prove just about anything. 
That's why data stew is so seductively tasty.  Hey, experts, since we
have O2, why not Si2?  That'd explain away a lot of Fe!

"Transmutation" establishes to my mind the amount of attention we should
pay to the other recent papers by this team on transmutation.

Since the reports by Miley and the patents by CETI also refer to Ni-H2O
systems, I will quote from my Ninth Miley Critique, October 23, 1997,
correcting my mistakes about recombination:

I apologize for offering up yet another tedious epistle in this series,
named in order for my own convenience in keeping track of what I've
done. 

Jed Rothwell recently described George Miley's results: "Nuclear
Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis,"
(First Preprint)  and "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation
Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During
Electrolysis," (Second Preprint), fall, 1996,  Fusion Studies
Laboratory, U. of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Illinois, 61801-2984,
217-333-3772, g-miley uiuc.edu.

Recombination of O2 and H2 in the electrolyte, catalyzed by the large 32
cm2 area of 1,000 closely packed Ni coated 1 mm beads, would act to
lower any output power.  Such recombination is well established to have
invalidated most claims of excess heat in nickel-light water cells, as
reported by three detailed, thorough theoretical and experimental
studies in 1995.

I'll summarize Mily's description, adding questions.  Miley makes it
clear that calorimetry was not the main focus of these runs, so I am
raising these questions mainly for pedagogic reasons, to indicate what
should be included in careful attempts at replication and searching out
possible artifacts.

Since his team made a variety of types of beads, which all produced
excess heat, it is difficult to claim that the quality of bead metal
coating is the critical factor for success.  No special source for high
quality Pd or Ni was claimed.  If high heat output can be reliably
replicated for thin film systems, then that would comprise a significant
advance in cold fusion research.  Up to now, unsuccessful experiments
are often dismissed with the claim that inferior sources of palladium
were used.  Hopefully, Miley's beads would be made available for
replication efforts by independent researchers.  In fact, low cost
excess heat kits could quickly be made widely available at a low cost.

Flow rate of 1-molar lithium sulfate electrolyte in light water:  "~11
ml/min", ~.2 ml/sec.  The beads occupy about .5 cm3.  It would take
about 5 seconds to move 1 cm3 of electrolyte through the cell.  Digital
flowmeter as source of impurities and electric potentials?  How
accurate?  How constant?  Any fluctuations?  Any color changes? 
Bubbles?  Composition after two weeks?  Changes in trace D2O levels? 
Amount and nature of gases evolved?  Any evidence for recombination of
H2 and O2?  Gunk deposited on inner walls of system?  Amount and
composition of solid debris in system?  Weight change of 1000 1mm Ni
plated beads?  Color and surface changes on beads?  Chemical assay of
dissolved Ni (initially about 2 milligrams for Run #8, 650-A Ni film)
from all beads to exactly determine any changes in composition?  Amount
of dissolved H2 and O2 over time?  Total amount of electrolyte in
system?  Table 4a: 100 ml electrolyte.  Composition of electrolyte
reservoir?

Entering electrolyte temperature: "approximately 60 degrees C" ""60-70
degrees C". How accurate?  How constant?

Run time: 310 hours.

Temperature rise: "less than 0.5 degrees C".  Complete graphed data of
two-week run data?  Accuracy?  Any heat bursts?  Any long-term drift? 
Type of thermisters?  Quality of electronics?  Electronic glitches? 
Precise location of thermisters, on top, outside tube, inside tube,
inside center of flow, exact distance from cell?  Any checks for
different results from these locations?  Possible source of electric
potentials? 

Initial loading: Exact loading times?  Graphs of initial voltage
changes, until "equilibrium voltage level of 2-3 V...about an hour...A
quantitative measurement of the loading was not attempted..."?  Other
measures to verify loading?

Auxilliary heater: Power?  Exact history of output?  Possible source of
trace impurities?  Possible source of elecric potentials?  "The pump and
preheater consume an additional 5 W..." 
   
Pump: power, constancy, source of bubbles, source of impurities or
electric potentials, mechanical energy imparted as heat to system?

Voltages and currents: "~2-3 V, with several mA of current, giving an
electrical input power of approximately 0.06 watt."  How accurate,
constant?  Exact graph for two-week run?  Any spikes?  Long term drift? 
Resistance of cell, exact graph for two-week run? Amount of H2 and O2
that should be evolved if recombination is zero?  Integrated electric
input power for two-week run?  Resistance of electrode leads, and their
contribution to excess heat?

Positive outputs: "in all cases"  How many cases?  Distribution of
data?  Was most heat output from steady output or spikes or bursts? 
Level of background fluctuation in data? "...only considered to be
accurate to +-0.4 W."  "...output of 0.5+-0.4 watts.  Calibration
corrections due to heat loses and flow-pattern variation indicated a
positive excess heat."  More details about heat losses and flow-pattern
variation?

Second Preprint mentions "Over a dozen experiments...Positive, but often
very small, increases in temperature across the cell, ranging from 0.1
to 4 degrees C, were observed in all cases."  Table 1, Summary of runs,
gives values for two runs in round numbers, like "2 +-0.5 W", while four
runs, with different composition and thicknesses of the metal films,
have exactly the same excess power, "0.1 - 0.9 W".

The electrolyte will after some time store up a level of dissolved O2
and H2.  Is it possible that a level will be reached in which suddenly
the cell starts to catalyze recombination with a vengance, generating
excess heat from the stored-up O2 and H2 in the electrolyte?  Rothwell's
claim that Motorola researchers in 1995 found hours of "heat after
death" production in their CETI-type cell after its input power was
turned off sparked an idea in my mind today, during a wonderful group
meditation this morning here in Santa Fe, "What if that heat output is
from the recombination of stored O2 and He in the electrolyte?  Can
anyone give me the name of the laboratory, or the researchers, or any
details about this report?  I would also welcome being sent copies of
more recent reports that discuss CETI cell power output in detail.

CETI, Cravens, Miley, Little, Claytor,or Merriman could check out this
scenario by setting up a cell with Pt electrodes to electrolyze a
slightly acidifid H2O electrolyte with recombination prevented by
enclosing the electrodes in open glass cylinders, until the electrolyte
has built up various levels of dissolved H2 and O2, and then running
that electrolyte through a CETI cell, with and without electric input
power, to measure the output heat.  Also, try a cell filled with tin
shot for a control.

Another possibility to be checked is that in a successful, high heat
output run, there might be an electric potential leak into the
electrolyte from the thermisters, auxiliary heater, pump, or digital
flowmeter, causing a 10 to 100 V potential from the titanium end
electrodes to the leak site, thus puting an unknown amount of electrical
energy into the electrolyte, generating a high level of dissolved H2 and
O2 and possibly other reactive chemicals, which would then react in the
cell to generate spurious, substantial excess heat.

Yet another possibility that has to be checked is that hot spots in the
complex geometry of packed beads may produce segregated, stable
streamlines of hot, low-density electrolyte, perhaps with altered
composition and viscosity, within the cell that extend far enough from
the cell to hit the output thermister, generating an excess heat signal
that is higher than the actual average temperature of the whole flow at
that point.  Anyone who has stirred cream into coffee can appreciate how
complex and stable the flow patterns can be.  Only a focused intention
to uncover such artifacts will discover them.

The CETI patent, first filed Dec. 4, 1995, is presented in complete
detail in Infinite Energy # 12, Jan.-Feb., 1997.  With a flow rate of
640 ml/min, 10.7 ml/sec, 5.0 V, .48 A, 2.40 W input, the temperature
rise is 5.4 degrees C, giving an excess heat of 10,079%, a hundred-fold
gain.  An identical control loop simultaneously ran a control cell
filled with "solid spherically shaped tin shot of about twenty to forty
mesh in diameter."  It lost 0.3 degrees C, and so had heat loss 13.4 W. 
Thermocouples were positioned within inlet and outlet tubes. 
"Corrected" estimates for the run resulted in a claimed excess heat of
108,120%, a thousand-fold increase. The dimensions, volume, and number
of beads in the three-cells-in-series design were not given.  Only very
summary data for a single run was given.  The length of the run was not
specified, nor the integrated power input, nor the detailed temperature
graphs for the whole run.  

No measurements of evolved H2 and O2 are described.  It is probable that
the control beads, "tin shot", were coated with Sn, which is not as
effective a catalyst of recombination as nickel.  Were the electrolytic
and the control thermocouples in exactly the same locations in their
outlet tubes?  Were this a substantial result, readily replicated, by
now there would have been resounding reports of successful replications
by many teams of this simple device with its incredible levels of output
power.

I imagine that the CETI network has become frustrated, puzzled, and
disenchanted by their own experiment. The experiment seems simple,
foolproof.  Yet, high heat output has not been replicated by others.  If
I am wrong, and detailed written reports exist, I would appreciate
having them sent to me, so I can offer a balanced appreciation.  Are
there features in the attempts at replication by Scott Little and by
Barry Merriman that would prevent recombination and other artifacts from
operating to generate apparent excess heat?

The effect is simply not understood.  No nuclear products have been
found, such as D, He-3, or He-4.  The natural response of a team caught
in the process of collective folly is to hunker down, cease searching
for artifacts, release incomplete descriptions,  equivocate, bargain for
time, apply spin control to negative reports, offer strictly in-house
controlled demonstrations to unqualified appraisers, and keep the muzzle
on those few outside scientists who are allowed to attempt replication
of the patented cells, while finding enough funding to either establish
the inital effect, or find a new, more productive experiment.  This is
probably the case with BlackLight Power, and may be starting to be the
process with the Cincinnati Group.  

Little listed 13 claimed positive excess heat results with Ni-H2O, many
by eminent laboratories. We see then that a multitude of interesting,
convincing positive claims in the cold fusion field may be all
invalidated. As my friend Sondra, an acapuncturist, told me tonight at
Luby's Cafeteria, "It looks like in science, sometimes you prove you're
right, and most of the time you prove you're wrong." I said, "That's
real science, for sure!" It is needful to be very cautious indeed in
evaluating claims in this field.

I will close by quoting from Evan L. Ragland's Preprint of ICCF6 paper,
from Infinite Energy, #10, Sept.-Oct., 1996, about his D2O with .1 M
LiOH "triode" 80ml open cells with Pd or Ni cathodes.  He does not here
explain how he calculates input power, so recombination may play a
significant role:

"Patent...filed 05 June 1995...assembled and calibrated by Dr. Dennis
Cravens...Tuesday 01 August...stabilized excess heat was calculated at
267%...02 August...restarted. Maximum excess heat measured was 40%...03
August...null results.  Bipolar triode and fibrous nickel cathode tests
were also inconclusive...November...inconclusive...14 December...200
degrees Fahrenheit...Efforts to repeat the anomaly went empty...23
December.  The test was fraught with unexpected complications,
miscalculations, and learning; however all new instrumentation worked
precisely and excellent records were logged.  The vexatious problem was
absolute absence of any evidence of excess heat...13 March, again
without evidence of excess heat...21 March...excess heat generation was
observed...200% of input.  Gain gradually increased to 500% with
operation and better informed control.  The reactor was in continuous
operation until deliberately shut down on 23 August 1996."

As is now well known, both Little and Tinsley, with the active and full
cooperation of Ragland,  failed to find any excess power with this
system.  Obviously, there were artifacts operating in 1995 and 1996, but
what were they?  If an unknown artifact produced months of up to 500%
excess power in this fairly standard electrolysis setup, then the
thoughtful armchair appraiser, which is after all, most of the
scientific community, is reasonably going to conclude that artifacts are
involved in all mysterious excess heat results for light and heavy water
alike.  Witness the recent thoughtful appraisal by Dr. Bennett Miller
[Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov], an astrophysicist, after perusing
hundreds of pages of research, submitted by Dr. Robert Bass
[rbrtbass pahrump.com].  Miller was simply not persuaded.

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 18:26:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA17788;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:25:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:25:00 -0800
Message-ID: <366C8E19.3F89 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 19:25:29 -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: Iwamur critique 7.22.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"33VvP2.0.qL4.wt8Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25251
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Murray: Iwamura critique 7.22.98
       Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:27:24 -0500
       From:  Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All

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.    Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 18:44:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24538;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:42:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 18:42:01 -0800
Message-ID: <366C921F.1834 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 19:42:39 -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: credibility of Swartz, of Iwamura  12.7.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6nzeH2.0.G_5.v79Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25252
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 7, 1998  Dear all,

Today, John Schnurer [herman antioch-college.edu] asked me:

 Q:  Mitchell has posted on the effect several times, and has 
written papers....  Why is he passed over?

I reposted my Swartz critique of 10.31.97.  I notice that in his recent
"Cold Fusion Times", Mitch is still vigorously publicizing the extremely
mediocre research by Miley and by Mizuno et al.  I notice that Mitch is
constantly engaged in windy and repetitious debates, that never achieve
anything, so I rarely read them.  Mitch since last summer no longer
advertises excess heat with his systems.

Rothwell today referred fondly to wonderful claims by Iwamura and his
team at Mitsubishi, so I reposted my detailed critique of 7.22.98.  An
author does like to see his words in print, after all, and memory is
indeed short in this electronic age.     Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec  7 20:47:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA12711;
	Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:46:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:46:23 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130524b2926a16031e [38.14.54.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:56:04 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Resent-Message-ID: <"lgnoB2.0.W63.UyARs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25253
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

**************************************************************
            NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
11445 East Via Linda, Suite 2416  *  Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
                      (602) 657-3722
            email: josephnewman earthlink.net

* * * * * * FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  DECEMBER 7, 1998 * * * * *

            To The People and Newsmedia of the World:

         PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
             December 14-20, 1998 * 1:00PM - 8:00PM


      PLACE:  La Quinta Hotel (Pima Room) - (602) 614-5300
  8888 E. Shea Blvd. (Corner Pima Rd.) * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
                      -- Free Admission --

  The Y2K potentially serious problems confronting this country
on January 1, 2000 are only 389 days away.  I have now and have
had for years a solution to the energy source problems  - - - a
solution that can have a dampening effect upon the Y2K scenario.

  There have  been  two important  European confirmations of my
life's work:

1) The information  provided  by  French researcher, Jean-Louis
   Naudin, dated 12/3/98 entitled, "The Newman's Energy Machine
   Self-Running Demonstration" and,

2) The information which has been provided by German researcher,
   Stefan Hartmann dated 12/4/98 entitled, "Aquafuel via Newman
   Coil and 2 Spark Gaps Produced!"

Consider the fact that the world media had reported that in the
21st century clean,  fresh water  will replace oil as the chief
need of the world's population.

I now refer you  to  the statement  from  my  book [The  Energy
Machine of Joseph Newman, page 281], in which I wrote (1984):

   "There will be an  end to  environmental pollution caused by
processes involving coal, oil, gas, or  nuclear fuels.  Deserts
can be transformed into 'oases,'  salt water can be readily and
inexpensively  converted  into  fresh  water with the extracted
minerals being used productively.  And on and on!"

 In the early 1980s I had conducted the Stefan Hartmann experi-
ment,  and  described  this  experiment  at  numerous  public
demonstrations and news conferences.

I am very grateful to Stefan Hartmann of Germany and Jean-Louis
Naudin  of France  for  independently  following the Scientific
Method and corroborating my life's work for Humanity.

QUESTION: Will YOU the PEOPLE of the U.S. and the WORLD as well
as the Newsmedia support my life's work for YOU?   Come and see
the truth for yourself from the INNOVATOR of this technology at
the La Quinta  Hotel in  Scottsdale, Arizona.   [A map from the
airport is  attached.   Rooms  are  available  at the hotel for
$69.00  (Discount Code LPR3;  call  1-800-NU-ROOMS);  $18.00 by
shuttle from airport.]

The presentation will run from December 14-20, 1pm-8pm each day.
I  will  personally  speak  and  demonstrate the technology and
explain my life's work at 2pm and 7pm daily.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT OUR FUTURE, COME AND BE THERE!


[signed]
JOSEPH WESTLEY NEWMAN


For more information, contact Joseph Newman at:  (602) 657-3722


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 00:49:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA01303;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:45:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:45:57 -0800
Message-ID: <19981208084517.12715.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.24]
From: "Rob King" <kingrsv hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:45:17 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"jan0j.0.DK.4TERs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25254
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Evan,

Will Mr Newman be demonstrating a self running motor at this event?


Rob King
>         PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
>             December 14-20, 1998 * 1:00PM - 8:00PM
>
>
>      PLACE:  La Quinta Hotel (Pima Room) - (602) 614-5300
>  8888 E. Shea Blvd. (Corner Pima Rd.) * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
>                      -- Free Admission --
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 08:00:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA00157;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 07:59:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 07:59:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981208105505.0069a800 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:55:05 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Self-sustaining Newman machine claim
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ExDWR1.0.N2.LpKRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25255
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is interesting. See J. L. Naudin's web page:

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/delany/256/html/nwjlself.htm

Quote from page:

12-02-98 - Demonstration of the Self-Running Newman's Machine.
I am glad to present you, a video demonstration with my personnal comments
about a the Newman's Machine v2.0 working in self running mode. After that
the power supply was disconnected the machine is able to run itself for few
minutes at 330 RPM while its generates mechanical and electrical power.
This is the first step, I need to increase this effect for a real
self-sustained and durable self-running....

If you have already installed the ReaVideo player (tm), fasten your seat
belts and watch the self-running demo video of the Newman's Machine v2.0.

* End of File *

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 11:59:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23363;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:53:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:53:34 -0800
Message-Id: <v0213050cb2932f4173e9 [38.14.54.89]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:03:13 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Resent-Message-ID: <"HYytd.0.zi5.zEORs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25256
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Evan,
>
>Will Mr Newman be demonstrating a self running motor at this event?
>
>
>Rob King
>>         PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
>>             December 14-20, 1998 * 1:00PM - 8:00PM
>>
>>
>>      PLACE:  La Quinta Hotel (Pima Room) - (602) 614-5300
>>  8888 E. Shea Blvd. (Corner Pima Rd.) * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
>>                      -- Free Admission --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Dear Rob,

Thanks for your inquiry.

The following is Joseph Newman's general statement regarding the demonstration:

"The Demonstration will feature clear scientific proof that the
production-model Motor/Generator is working exactly as I state and is ready
for mass production for any need. The people can come that wish; doubters
should not waste my time!"

                        --- Joseph Westley Newman

Best regards,

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 15:15:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00574;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:11:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:11:52 -0800
Message-ID: <366DB25F.3EE1 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 16:12:31 -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: McKubre: recombination artifact & McKubre data  12.8.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2PWVF.0.u8.t8RRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25257
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: McKubre response
  Date:  Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:15 -0400 (EDT)
  From:  Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

To: Dr. M. McKubre

Thank you for your participation in this forum.  I would like to take
this opportunity to ask you about the recent EPRI report covering your
work.  

First, just as a point of interest, I noticed no one had signed the
report I read, and your name appeared in the title pages only in the
list of investigators.  Did you write the report, or did T. Passel? 
Perhaps more importantly, are the conclusions and explanations contained
within yours?

Next, I am looking at your M1 run, specifically the first part that
includes data through 8AM of 3/18/94.  I am having difficulty
reproducing the exact excess energy curve presented in Figure 3-69.  Can
you give me the explicit protocol you use to transform the raw data into
the excess power curve? I would greatly appreciate your assistance on
this.

Re. your prior message, you wrote:

> RE>Storms: Shanahan: recombination*         
> 12/3/98
> 
> All - the attached piece by Ed Storms is beautifully and kindly
> reasoned.   For my sins, having spent nearly 6 years closely focused on
> calorimetry in the electrochemical D/Pd system, I can assert that Ed's
> arguments in each case are correct, and essentially complete.  

Of course I tend to disagree on the correct and complete points.

> I would add only one or two things:
> 
> 1)  The reaction that occurs in an electrolysis cells between oxygen
> sourced at the anode and hydrogen (or D) at the cathode is not
> recombination but depolarization.  Dissolved oxygen arriving at the
> cathode is reduced directly.  This is the reverse of the anode reaction
> which makes the oxygen, and under all conditions the voltage driving
> force is so large that the kinetics of this depolarization reaction are
> essentially instantaneous.    The rate of recombination, H's or D's and
> O's making water on a submerged Pd electrode, on the other hand, is
> essentially zero.  Pd is not as good as Pt for this purpose, and a
> wetted surface of either metal is simply incapable of sustaining the
> conditions necessary for molecular recombination.     

I would really like to know why you think this is true.  It seems to me
that I would expect the equivalent gas phase chemistry except at
somewhat reduced rates.  It also seems to me that you are suggesting all
papers reporting on the measurement of Faradaic efficiencies less than
100% are based on completely wrong chemistry, i.e. something else must
be producing the heat they measure.

> Why is this
> distinction important (except in a mechanistic or etymological sense)? 
> The maximum possible recombination rate in the steady state obviously
> would consume all of the O2 produced at the anode (this is what  we
> require and rely on from the dry, extended area, Pt recombiner). 
> Because the wet Pd surface is no more catalytic active that the wall of
> the vessel (i.e. functionally zero). and is of relatively small area,
> this reaction does not occur    

During 'normal' cell operations I agree, but I postulate that those 
conditions change during a 'cold fusion' event.

> The  depolarization rate, on the other
> hand) is limited by the amount of dissolved oxygen that can diffuse to
> the cathode surface.  Since O2 is sparingly soluble in water under all
> conditions explored (and admitted) so far in CF experiments, this
> maximum rate is very low, as Ed correctly states.  In fact, Hansen,
> Jones et al measured this rate skillfully and accurately, they simply
> misunderstood its origins, and, therefore, mis-extrapolated their
> conclusions.

On the other hand, Ed points out that mixing does deliver some O2 to the 
cathode in the form of bubbles, so considering only the dissolved O2 is
a 'minimum effect' point of view.  You have to use the result as the
minimum you'd expect to see.

> 2)  We have conducted several tests to determine whether the position
> of the heat source could affect the measured response of our
> calorimeters.   Obviously one could imagine a badly designed
> calorimeter in which this was a significant source of systematic error,
> but in our case I am confident that it is not for the following reasons:

I simply imagine a calorimeter with two regions of differing heat
capture efficiency, and I wonder what might happen if a steady-state
thermal gradient shifts between those regions.

>      a) The thermal efficiency of our mass flow calorimeter achieved
> values in excess of 99% (depending on mass flow rate and operating
> temperature).  The effect of errors on moving the heat source must be
> looked for in that last 1% !!      

Right.  "My" model says Excess heat = "X"* kc * (k2-k1).  "X" is the
heat that is suggested to have moved during the change in steady-state 
configuration.  Reasonably speaking, "X" is probably some fraction of
the possible recombination heat, give by Ed as 1.54*Icell.  Shall we 
choose your electrolysis current of 2.2A and your excess heat of 140 mW?

"kc" is the reciprocal of the overall heat capture efficiency of the 
calorimeter.  So in your case kc=1.01.  The quantity (k2-k1) represents 
the difference in heat capture efficiencies between the two regions that 
we partition the calorimeter into.  The total heat captured = k2*H2 + 
k1*H1 == Hc, and the true heat out = heat in = kc*Hc.  Simplistic, but I 
think it captures the essence. 

Thus "X" = .14/1.01*(k2-k1) = 1.54*2.2 = 3.388 at a maximum and so 
(k2-k1) = .0409.  That's for 100% of the recombination heat moving from
the recombiner to the electrode for example.  50% means (k2-k1) = .0818,
and 10% means (k2-k1)=.409.  

If instead you are dealing with a 95% efficient calorimeter, then
kc=1.053, and (k2-k1) at maximum = .0392, and .392 at 10% transfer. 
Notice that as the calorimeter gets less efficient overall, it takes
less of a design difference to produce a fixed effect.

This puts some bounds on our discussion.  Ed did not supply his
calorimeter's overall efficiency, so we can't discuss his results any
further than to suggest the possibility that this can happen.  I
especially found it interesting that he claims his recombiner runs at
the electrolyte's temperature, while yours runs at a much higher temp
when functioning properly.

In your case, you can see above the approximate efficiency difference
that is required by your results.  This is why I am looking at your data
now.  If I can see a drop in recombiner temperature, I can then look for
a concomitant excess heat peak.  However, as noted above, I need your
algorithm to calculate excess heat.

> b) We have modeled extensively (both
> analytic and finite element) our calorimeters precisely to test and
> minimize the position sensitiveness of the design.     

There is a simple truth about modeling, "GIGO" (garbage in => garbage
out). If your model did not include the equations necessary to model the
system correctly, your computations are meaningless.  I would need to
examine the models closely before I accept your results without
question.

> c) We have
> tested experimentally by varying the position of dummy heat sources.
> There are secondary or tertiary effects in the third decimal place but
> not enough to cause experimental concern.

These results are reported where?  (I would be particularly interested
in publications with exact cell dimensions and exact heat source and
thermistor placements.)

> 3) Rich, when you make statements like "Kirk Shanahan has proposed a
> new hypothesis for a recombination artifact that could explain most
> well-known excess heat claims" I submit that you are doing a disservice
> to open dialogue, to science and to common logic.  

Actually, it's kind of funny, but it took that kind of comment to get a 
response from you...  Rich can be overly enthusiastic, but he might just
be 'trolling'... You have to watch out for those Internet-savvy guys (or
gals) who just like to see a spirited discussion...

> I doubt that Kirk (whom I do not know) would make such a bold claim.  

Depends if I'm trolling or not...

> The hypothesis he
> is exploring is not new (I, and others, anticipated it, explored it,
> tested it, discussed it and rejected it in 1989 and 1990).  

Ok, I would love to know how you rejected the scenario, in detail.

> As explain above, the phenomenon is most assuredly not recombination, 

Actually your 'depolarization' seems to me to just be the first step of 
a multi-step chemical reaction pathway.  We start with the Pd surface
populated with adsorbed H, then oxidize O2 to 2O(2-) (isn't this your 
'depolarization'?).  We then react the O with H to form OH and H2O.  
That is just standard surface chemistry.  The rate limiting step could 
be O2 transport to the cathode, or it might be finding an adequate 
available surface site where the recombination step(s) is(are)
performed.  So you see why I don't follow your claim that recombination
cannot occur...

>and is at most an effect with small (and easily calculable) consequences.

Yes, calculable, just like I did above...

>Even if present to the extent imagined by Kirk, it would produce an 
>unmeasurably small error in our calorimeters (which I would have 
>thought would have been included amongst the "best-known excess heat 
>claims").  

Wow, 140 mW or larger is "an unmeasurably small error"?  (I am being
deliberately facetious here in order to clearly point out that I
calculate 'usual' apparent cold fusion signals from what I think are
reasonable assumptions.  I would certainly yield to either a theoretical
argument showing what is wrong with my 'model', or b) experimental data
showing the effect can not happen, and that's why I started this
discussion anyway!)

>I invite you to choose your words with rigor and not 
>hyperbole.  The debate you sponsor is useful, and fielding serious 
>questions from inquiring minds will help us frame our thoughts and 
>reasoning to become more accurate and effective in communicating our 
>conclusions.

Yes, and I look forward to our continuing discussions in this light!

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 15:22:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03716;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:20:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:20:29 -0800
Message-ID: <366DB464.1CFC earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 16:21:08 -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  12.8.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FD52O.0.mv.zGRRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25258
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Minor Correction to my last response to Dick Blue.
  Date:  Wed, 09 Dec 1998 09:25:09 -0500
  From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Rich,

     I would appreciate your forwarding the following post, which
includes a minor correction to my last response to Dick.  The correction
deals with a "somewhat subtle," but important point, concerning
"coherent, resonant photons," that I mistated in the previous post.  In
particular, in the ground state limit associated with the theory, these
"photons" are all "off-mass shell"; i.e., they are virtual photons:
their angular frequencies (and energies) are all very close to zero
(their angular frequencies are not given  a "reciprocal lattice vector"
x c, as stated in the post); while their wave-vectors are given by
reciprocal lattice vectors.  
     The reason this point is important is because there is physics
associated with it: a zero frequency photon (as in the Coulomb potential
associated with static charges, for example) can impart momentum,
instaneously, to moving charges located a finite distance away from it,
coherently.  It is this feature of coherently resonating photons that
explains how it is possible to eliminate the requirement that energy be
dispersed locally in a potential nuclear process, involving a short
lifetime, through a coherent, long-ranged form of interaction that
resonants throughout the solid.

     Directly, below I am including a corrected version of the original
post.

Scott Chubb answers Dick Blue:

>Sorry, I did not make myself clear on this point.  Of course there are
>observations relating to the supposed CF phenomena which are in
>agreement with your theoretical modeling of the process.  What I would
>hope is that at some point your theory could address observations which
>deal more directly with questions of quantum coherence, etc.  

The theory does in fact do this with respect to two areas that
superficially appear to be not directly related to CF:

1.  The anomalous shift in super-conducting critical temperature that
accompanies D for H substitution in PdHx at x=1,         and 

2.  The anomalous increase in diffusivity that occurs when D is
substituted for H  over a continuous range of loadings in PdHx.

These effects, taken by themselves, are driven by electromagnetic
interactions.  However, because they are explained by periodic order,
quantum coherence, and the bosonic (as opposed to fermionic) character
of D, they provide evidence that in PdDx (PdHx), D+ (H+) nuclear centers
can be treated as fundamental band state-like "particles" (actually
waves), and that these waves may interact coherently with the solid. 
These effects, by themselves, do not constitute direct evidence that
interactions between these waves can occur coherently.  This is a new,
extension of existing theory that we have introduced.

>I don't happen to agree with you that the wide assortment of CF claims
>actually, in detail, the predictions of your model.  Dependence on
>crystal size, for example, is hardly well established experimentally.

Critical crystal size dependence has not been established.  But there is
important evidence in support of the idea that crystal structure does
play a role.  The Arata-Zhang results are consistent with the critical
crystal size (and optimal heating modes predicted by the model) of the
theory.

>I don't know where you got the notion that nuclear physicists, in
>general, or me in particular treat the strong interactions and
>electromagnetic interactions as "separable."  

In this context, I was referring to the separability between
electromagnetic and nuclear interactions that occurs in conventional D+D
Gamow theory Fusion.  It is of course true that in free space the
D+D->4He interaction, a Gamma ray is emitted, and it is here that I did
not make myself clear.  In particular, you are quite correct in
asserting that in the context of this reaction, the electromagnetic and
nuclear interactions are not treated as being separable.  And this gets
to a very important point associated with the theory and the assumed
physics.  In the "collision" problem that gives rise to overlap, in
conventional nuclear physics the D+D electromagnetic and nuclear
interactions are separable.  In particular, it is assumed that overlap
occurs, and once overlap occurs, a coupled electromagnetic-nuclear
scenario results that leads to the dissipation of energy.  In the decay
portion of the interaction, which occurs on fermi-level energy scales,
in particular, the strong and electromagnetic interactions are not (and
cannot) be treated as being separable.  On the other hand, in the
"collision" portion of the problem, especially when the incident
energies are less than ~1 MeV, nuclear physicists do (and are allowed to
treat) the two forms of interaction as being separable.

>I think you are wrong on
>this point.  
>I certainly would never attempt to treat the
>deuteron-deuteron interaction that way because it is quite clear from
>experimental observations that the coupling between these two has a
>profound influence on low-energy reaction processes.  

As I said, Gamow theory is used to describe the "collision" portion of
the process.  This can also be viewed as describing the portion of the
process that gives rise to an initial state in which overlap occurs.  It
is in this context that I was referring to separability.  

In illucidating this point to you, however, I have come across an
important additional point associated with the theory:  in the coherent
processes associated with the theory, non-separable coupling between the
electromagnetic and nuclear interactions in the subsequent decay
channels can only occur in a way that, to an excellent approximation,
involves photons that coherently resonate with the solid (through the
condition that photon wave-vector= Reciprocal lattice vector).

>Perhaps confusion has to do with precisely which source terms for the
>electromagnetic interaction are considered and which are separated.  I
>suspect that you have not sorted out various contributions according to
>their strength.

The "confusion" is semantical in nature.  I was not fully illucidating
the distinction between the overlap process (where it is allowed to
treat the interactions as being separable) from the "decay" process,
where, as you point out, it is simply incorrect to assume separability.

>>The claim is that the dependence of the strong interaction on the
>> difference between the centers of mass of proton-neutron pairs (for
>> example, pn12-pn34=(r1+r2-r3-r4)*.5, and pn14-pn32.5*(r1+r4-r3-r2)) can
>> not be treated as being separable from the electromagnetic interaction.
>> This is because large amounts of momentum can be imparted locally as a
>> result resonant coherence resulting from periodic order.
>

>I am indeed puzzled by this and am beginning to wonder whether your
>"no latent heat" condition" is not covering something very significant
>to this discussion.  

This is an important element of the discussion.  The requirement of "no
latent heat" leads to the result that the only electromagnetic coupling
can not change the energy of the system.  And this occurs when the only
allowed processes are mediated through (virtual) photons which are
always trapped within the solid coherently.  These coherently resonating
(virtual) photons have momenta that are always equal to hbar x
Reciprocal Lattice Vector, and vanishing frequency.

>Just what is included in "latent heat" and why
>is it significant to your model?  The reason I ask is that I sense that
>something is missing from you description of 4He above relative to
>how I would expect 4He to be described.  What I have not seen in your
>comments is a clear statement of how you address differences in total
>potential energy for the various configurations?  Is that somehow
>related to the "no latent heat" condition?  If it is, you are being
>pretty darned sneaky.
>

There is a coupling between the strong and electromagnetic interactions.
The difference in energy that results from the decay of the "excited"
strong interaction nucleus is "carried away" by resonant photons
(possessing vanishing frequeny with momenta given by hbar x reciprocal
lattice vector), which are absorbed coherently by electrons, again
resonantly (with no energy release within the crystal).  Because the
crystal has a finite boundary, the process of coherently absorbing the
associated photon momentum results in a coherent redefinition of the
energy (and momentum) zero of the crystal lattice relative to its
boundary, and this leads to energy dissipation.

>> In fact, it is only necessary (and in fact required) to include the
>> Bloch symmetry in the dependence in one of the two differences
>> (pn12-pn32 or pn14-pn32).  But it is necessary to include this
>> dependence in order to account for the fact that as a result of resonant
>> coherent interaction from periodic order, the electromagnetic and strong
>> interactions can become coupled (because the electromagnetic interaction
>> can impart huge amounts of momentum locally) in a non-separable way.
>
>Could you be more specific on this point?  What accounts for this
>coupling, and can you describe it in terms of a multipole expansion
>which is something to which I can more generally relate?

Yes--the multipole expansion is a many-centered expansion.  It involves
spherical waves (Neumann functions) muliplied by multipoles, which,
analogous to the kind of expansion that one encounters in multiple
scattering problems in solids (for example in the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker
method used in Band State Physics), involves periodically displaced
spaced centers.  In this context, it is allowable to apply the small
radius expansion about each center.  A distinguishing feature, however,
is that tail contributions (which are Bessel function like) introduce
scattering that extends throughout the periodic solid.  These tails give
rise to the resonant behavior I described.

>> This dependence simply is not included in conventional nuclear physics.
>> In the model we are proposing, it is.  In practice, there is a simply
>> way of handling this; it involves quite literally saying that the
>> reaction (i.e., the change in the zero of kinetic energy) is distributed
>> coherently throughout the solid, while computing the "effective strong
>> force" interaction, using conventional nuclear physics, and coupling the
>> energy to the lattice by shifting the zero of kinetic energy of the
>> lattice relative to its boundary.  The reason this prescription works
>> and is unique is because it maintains the Born-Oppenheimer separability
>> of the wave functions and the separability of the nuclear and
>> electromagnetic interactions.
>
>Please tell me about changes in the zero of potential energy as we move
>from having two deuterons to having one 4He.  

As I said, coupling to photons through coherent resonant processes is
responsible for changing the zero of potential energy.  In other words,
the decay is through these photons (which are virtual photons), and
these (virtual) photons are coherently absorbed. That these are the
dominant photons results from the requirements that energy be minimized,
periodic order be maintained and that there be no latent heat.

>I also am still puzzled
>as to how you can put the neutrons several unit vectors away from the
>protons and not have them interacting with other nucleons in the
>lattice. 

Each "neutron" is never more than several fermi's from a proton.

>Well, it is virtually impossible to establish that anything "enhances"
>the Cold Fusion effect, when no one can even establish a level against
>which such enhancements may be judged.  Has anyone demostrated a simple
>binary effect?  You know, magnet on, magnet off with the power level
>responding immediately and dramatically?  I would think that anything
>like that would move to publication with some dispatch such that we
>would not have to speculate about what you have heard.

The relevant magnetic effect involves flipping D+ spins, which would be
accomplished in an NMR type of experiment.  The "enhancement" I
suggested is tied to the potential for an anisotropic response that is
similar in spirit to your suggestion of "a magnet on"/"magnet on" form
of experiment. In particular, I suggested that it would be useful to
orient the DC magnetic field in the NMR experiment in a direction that
is predominantly perpendicular to the surface (or surfaces) of crystals
within the electrode, followed by a second experiment in which this
field is oriented essentially parallel to the surface.  The theory
suggests that in the second experiment, there is a greater probability
of obtaining excess heat and 4He.

>> Phrases like "stumbled into the wrong camp when you allied yourself"
>> don't really serve a useful purpose.  Why not leave off the entire last
>> sentence of this comment?
>
>I'll leave off such comments if you will promise never to drop
>Schwinger's name into this discussion again.

Done--

>> Quantum mechanics does pay attention to coherence and periodic order.
>> Quantum mechanically, it is impossible to say how many D's are in the
>> solid, in band states, and interacting through a distributed nuclear
>> reaction, resulting from resonant coherent interaction due to periodic
>> order.
>
>I have not been questioning the significance of coherence and periodic
>order for quantum mechanics in general.  The question is whether this
>applies to the system at hand.  You perhaps indicate that it would if
>certain assumed conditions are met, but what have you done to actually
>demonstrate that your assumptions are at all reasonable?  

The assumptions are consistent with the underlying behavior of the
electrons (their band structure and the related chemistry) and some of
the the quantum transport phenomena (and anomalies) associated with H
and D, interacting with Pd.  Because the theory also explains some of
these anomalies, it has added credibility.  The big, new step is to
extend some of these ideas to the idea of resonant, coherent nuclear
reactions of the form that I have discussed.

>Now my
>approach has been to try to determine just what it is that you think
>provides a mechanism for a silent, undetectable transition from deuteron
>pairs to 4He.  I don't find anything in the many transmissions that
>deals with, for example, energy differences between the two systems. 

I hope my discussion of the electromagnetic interaction in the present
communication clarifies this.

>Yet, that clearly is at the heart of the matter.  I ask that you tell us
>when and where the transition occurs, and how you know that it does
>occur.  Do you have "before" and "after" wave functions?  What precisely
>is the potential for which each of said wave functions is an appropriate
>eigenstate, and how do you know that?

Because the virtual photons are coherently absorbed and transmitted, the
electromagnetic portion of the decay can be treated by simply describing
the behavior of the electrons.  This is the origin of the coherent
redistribution of charge that we have talked about.  We have treated the
the nuclear reaction physics using a nuclear well that adequately
represents nuclear matter, through a nucleus of mass 8 (which is used to
mimic 8Be*).

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 19:18:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03680;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:14:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:14:36 -0800
Message-ID: <001a01be2321$d7f80080$65faf0cf default>
From: "mrand access" <mrand@iols.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:12:59 -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: <"qHKUR2.0.Qv.RiURs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25259
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 Hi Evan,
Glad to hear that Mr. Newman will doing another demonstration!  Any idea
when we can buy a unit to power our homes?

Regards,   Michael Randall

BTW, will the event be available on video? Would like to see a self-running
power plant in operation 8^)

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY


>>Evan,
>>
>>Will Mr Newman be demonstrating a self running motor at this event?
>>
>>
>>Rob King
>>>         PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
>>>             December 14-20, 1998 * 1:00PM - 8:00PM
>>>
>>>
>>>      PLACE:  La Quinta Hotel (Pima Room) - (602) 614-5300
>>>  8888 E. Shea Blvd. (Corner Pima Rd.) * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
>>>                      -- Free Admission --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>Dear Rob,
>
>Thanks for your inquiry.
>
>The following is Joseph Newman's general statement regarding the
demonstration:
>
>"The Demonstration will feature clear scientific proof that the
>production-model Motor/Generator is working exactly as I state and is ready
>for mass production for any need. The people can come that wish; doubters
>should not waste my time!"
>
>                        --- Joseph Westley Newman
>
>Best regards,
>
>Evan Soule'
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec  8 23:25:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA17421;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 23:24:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 23:24:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209073120.011a90b0 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, 09 Dec 1998 02:31:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hansen and Murray arguments are innumerate
Resent-Message-ID: <"mmHCR3.0.4G4.hMYRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25260
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 12:37 PM 12/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
(snip)
>	There are also psychokinetic effects, claimed plausibly in
>	various experiments in parapsychology: things do mysteriously go
>	bump in the night...
>
>These phenomena do not exist.

"Margins Of Reality - The Role Of Consciousness In The Physical World" by
Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne

Statistical data to the contrary. Perhaps I have accumulated enough positive
energy to cancel everyone else's negative energies to the point of having
enough positive energy left over to get successful design results?


Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG


Someday I hope we will hear (because of bountiful resources from new
technology):

Here's everything you need to live comfortably. You don't have to do
anything for it. Your obligation for these resources is to attain your full
human potential and find out how to help the greatest number of people
possible in the most positive way possible in a way that gives you the
greatest personal satisfaction possible, if you can. If you take pleasure in
evil deeds done to others, we will find out. We will not allow such behavior
and you will lose everything forever. You will become all the greatness that
you can dream and more; there is no other choice available. Period.

Dennis C. Lee

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 01:25:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA08521;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:24:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:24:16 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209093105.01191be4 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, 09 Dec 1998 04:31:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
Resent-Message-ID: <"-jjyF.0.252.-6aRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25261
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:22 AM 12/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
(snip)
>Your reference was wrong.  Many researchers (starting with Beutler in ~1935
>and including the famous Herzberg) have measured the dissociation energy of
>hydrogen molecules by dissociating them with extreme UV radiation around 86
>nm wavelength.

Could you be more specific about these references?

>Such photons have 14.7 eV of energy which is sufficient to
>separate the H2 molecule into one ground-state H atom and one H atom in the
>first excited electronic state (10.2 eV above the ground state).  The
>difference, 4.5 eV, is the dissociation energy of the hydrogen molecule.

Oops, I just saw your last response from a while back mentioning these
references. I guess there's just too much contradictory info to know
anything for sure. If you site those refs exactly, I could look them up.
References prior to the National Security Act may be more reliable however.
Wait, if this has been classified, then there's good reason to keep it so.
But, the confusion created is messing up everything. What will become of us?

Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 03:33:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA26400;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 03:31:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 03:31:22 -0800
Message-Id: <v0213053cb29404618e5b [38.14.54.250]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:41:05 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Resent-Message-ID: <"UKqUt1.0.JS6.9-bRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25262
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Hi Evan,
>Glad to hear that Mr. Newman will doing another demonstration!  Any idea
>when we can buy a unit to power our homes?
>
>Regards,   Michael Randall
>
>BTW, will the event be available on video? Would like to see a self-running
>power plant in operation 8^)

Dear Michael,

Joseph Newman has stated that he is engaged in securing the capitalization
for commercial production of the technology and his goal is have the
technology available next year.  He may plan to videotape the presentation;
if so, perhaps it can be digitalized and posted to a website.

Regards,

Evan Soule'



>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Soule <josephnewman earthlink.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02 PM
>Subject: Re: PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
>
>
>>>Evan,
>>>
>>>Will Mr Newman be demonstrating a self running motor at this event?
>>>
>>>
>>>Rob King
>>>>         PRESENTATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
>>>>             December 14-20, 1998 * 1:00PM - 8:00PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      PLACE:  La Quinta Hotel (Pima Room) - (602) 614-5300
>>>>  8888 E. Shea Blvd. (Corner Pima Rd.) * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
>>>>                      -- Free Admission --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________
>>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>Dear Rob,
>>
>>Thanks for your inquiry.
>>
>>The following is Joseph Newman's general statement regarding the
>demonstration:
>>
>>"The Demonstration will feature clear scientific proof that the
>>production-model Motor/Generator is working exactly as I state and is ready
>>for mass production for any need. The people can come that wish; doubters
>>should not waste my time!"
>>
>>                        --- Joseph Westley Newman
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Evan Soule'
>>
>>
>>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 03:48:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA31460;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 03:47:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 03:47:23 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209115426.011bda80 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, 09 Dec 1998 06:54:26 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Murray: Swartz critique  10.31.97
Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z4qqB2.0.Uh7.BDcRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25263
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;



At 07:02 PM 12/7/98 -0700, you wrote:
(snip)
>Unusual care is taken to deal with artifacts.  Appropriate for this day,
>"A light green-colored nickel colloid (which settles over hours) was
>observed to follow anodic polarization of the nickel electrodes.  By
>allowing anodic polarization to continue for days, this voluminous gel,
>possibly consistent with nickel oxide and/or nickel hydroxide, was
>collected.  This colloid material is capable of interfering with
>measurements because it may be able to store electrochemical energy and
>may contribute additional conduction polarization and other effects..."
>Green ichor?  In my experiment?  Kidding aside, this got me to
>thinking-- or whatever it is that "pathological skeptics" do with their
>minds-- how many kinds of gels like this are there?  Would they clog up
>the pipes in flow systems, causing weaker pumps to slow down, reducing
>the flow rate, leading to higher delta T and spurious excess power?  In
>a static system, would they either create by insulation or conduction
>channels of electric power flow, creating hot spots on the electrodes,
>and/or hot streams of electrolyte flow that could impinge upon the
>location of the thermister, creating a local high T signal?  The
>build-up of complex gels, foams, and deposits could over various time
>scales create artifacts, including thermal stratification layers in the
>cell, that would vary with current, flow rate, pressure, temperature,
>and the phase of the moon, for all I know.  Foams and bubbles popping at
>the surface of the electrolyte can spray deposits over the top of the
>cell, allowing any minute leaks in wires to generate unsuspected current
>flows, generating ohmic heating and apparent excess energy.

Nickel is a transition element so is probably capable of the high spin
monatomic phase. Monatomics are water soluble so a gel would make sense if
spontaneous monatomic fission is involved with CF.

(snip)

>Swartz's five-ring calorimeter is complex, and only a schematic diagram
>is given.  For evaluation, we need such details as exact dimensions and
>locations.  There is no stirrer in the central electrolysis cell.  At
>the low current densities used, ~2 X 10exp-5 to 10exp-2 A/cm2, would
>there be enough bubbling to prevent thermal stratification?  Runs were
>done with distilled water and with ordinary water-- why on earth was
>ordinary water used?

Viktor Schauberger research may have a reason but no 'credible' scientist
would go there.

(snip)

>So, again, years of careful work by an unusually competent, careful
>researcher, and what is proven?  Drowning in data stew, grasping at
>fickle patterns in the random bubbling?

A certain most honored professor might have a system of analysis that could
help. But if one understood this system that well, one might agree that 'the
first three aren't good'.

>Overall, having examined many
>studies carefully for a year, I feel sad.

Well, at least you can feel good knowing that 'national security' is at
maximum safety.

Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 06:13:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA31354;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:11:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:11:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209081003.009048dc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:10:03 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981209093105.01191be4 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eBmnH.0.lf7.fKeRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25264
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:31 12/9/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>If you site those refs exactly, I could look them up.

"Die Dissoziationswarme des Wasserstoffmolekuls H2, aus der
Rotationsstruktur an der langwelligen Grenze des Absorptionskontinuums bei
850 A bestimmt", H. Beutler, Z. Phys. Chem. B29, p315, (1935)

"The Dissociation Energies of the H2, HD, and D2 Molecules", G. Herzberg
and A. Monfils, J. Mol. Spectry. 5, p482, (1969)

"The Dissociation Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule", G. Herzberg, J. Mol.
Spectry. 33, p147, (1970)

"Dissociation Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule", A. Balakrishnan, V. Smith,
and B.P. Stoicheff, Phys. Lett. Vol 68, No 14, p2149, 6 APR 1992

The first 3 will be in the Chemistry library, the last in Physics.

>References prior to the National Security Act may be more reliable however.
>Wait, if this has been classified, then there's good reason to keep it so.
>But, the confusion created is messing up everything. What will become of us?

Get a grip, man!



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 Dec  9 06:48:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA13806;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:44:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:44:45 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209145150.01197e70 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, 09 Dec 1998 09:51:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
Resent-Message-ID: <"MvjP12.0.eN3.TpeRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25265
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 08:10 AM 12/9/98 -0600, you wrote:
(snip)
>>If you site those refs exactly, I could look them up.
>
(snip)
>The first 3 will be in the Chemistry library, the last in Physics.
>
(snip)

You wouldn't have anything pre 1947 from USA?

Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 07:57:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA12637;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:56:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:56:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209100152.0068d230 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:01:52 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Mizuno book translation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"33A6F3.0.F53._sfRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25266
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Copies of the Mizuno book "The Reality of Cold Fusion" finally arrived from
the printer last week. We have mailed copies to Bob Flower and Melvin
Miles. If there is someone else on this forum I promised to give a copy to,
please contact me.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 09:01:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04270;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:58:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:58:57 -0800
Message-ID: <008401be2394$7f78aea0$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:53:07 -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: <"pRbWv1.0.Z21.HngRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25268
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Speculation based on String-Superstring Particle Theory:

The electron 0.000548 AMU, Ro = kq^2/Eo ~= 2.81E-15 meters
Eo ~= 8.16E-19 joules.

The Deuteron 2.0140 AMU containing 8 "quarks" (5A - 2Z)each with a Radius R
= kq^2/Eo ~= 6.14E-18 meters, Eo~= 3.75E-11 joules each.

Since String Theory maintains that these are "length only"entities,they can
be stacked side-by-side and yet have no width, so you can get lots of them
in a very small space. :-)


Upon being driven into a close approach to the deuteron the quarks share
energy-radius with the electron, literally shrinking it from Ro to R'
simultaneously creating an internal Neutrino-Antineutrino Pair.

At this point a Neutral-Unstable "DiNeutron" weighing 2.014548 AMU has been
formed with NO LOSS OF MASS from the Deuterium Atom, and being unstable it
Fissions to a Neutron
of 1.008665 AMU and a "Light Neutron" weighing 1.00352 AMU
and emits the neutrino.

IOW. The 2.23 Mev binding energy (0.0024 Mev)that the Proton-Neutron had, is
now compensated by the "Light Neutron" entity.

Assuming that the "LN" can act somewhat like a regular neutron it can be
absorbed by a deuteron (unspecified absorption cross-section):

D + LN ---> Tritium + 1.415 Mev which restores the "LN" to the Normal
Neutron Mass.

Or, the LN can go into and cause Transmutation or Fissioning of nuclei.

Thoughts?

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 09:01:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04248;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:58:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:58:56 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209105813.00905960 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:58:13 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981209145150.01197e70 popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"uIzjX2.0.F21.GngRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25267
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:51 12/9/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:

>You wouldn't have anything pre 1947 from USA?

Looking in the Herzberg & Monfils paper, I see that James and Coolidge
(names  sound English, at least) derived Do from quantum theoretical
calculations and got a value 0.03% lower than Beutler's experimental value.
(H.M. James and A. Coolidge, L. Chem. Phys. 1, 825, (1933).

BTW, Beutler's value was only 60 parts per million lower than the most
recent value obtained experimentally by Balakrishnan.  Balakrishnan's value
matches that obtained by Herzberg in 1970 to within 6 ppm and it matches a
recent theoretical calculation by Kolos, Szalewicz, and Monkhorst to within
0.2 ppm.

Hmmmm!...a 60 ppm discrepancy between 1935 and now...maybe there IS an
NSA-sponsored conspiracy to conceal the truth about the hydrogen molecule...



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 Dec  9 10:41:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14755;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:39:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:39:39 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <366EB668.5EBD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 09:42:00 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
References: <008401be2394$7f78aea0$12441d26 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QmSuI1.0.Tc3.gFiRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25269
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 8, 1998

Vortex:

Frederick J Sparber wrote:

> Thoughts?

How does this translate into a laboratory experiment setup with
appropriate data acquisition equiptment?

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 11:19:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA28521;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:16:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:16:10 -0800
Message-ID: <00bd01be23a7$a800fc20$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:10:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"GSqyf3.0.Wz6.tniRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25270
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: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Akira wrote:


>December 8, 1998
>
>Vortex:
>
>Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>
>How does this translate into a laboratory experiment setup with
>appropriate data acquisition equiptment?

Would like to try the P&F Cell, Ceti Beads,
Griggs Pump, Potapov Microcavitation, Sonoluminescence, Kinetic Furnace, to
name a few possibilities?   :-)

Regards,   Frederick

>
>-ak-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 11:48:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08853;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:47:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:47:43 -0800
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:39:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Mizuno book translation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981209100152.0068d230 pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981209143920.7947D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"10BVG.0.FA2.VFjRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25271
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




	Yes.  Myself!  :)
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Copies of the Mizuno book "The Reality of Cold Fusion" finally arrived from
> the printer last week. We have mailed copies to Bob Flower and Melvin
> Miles. If there is someone else on this forum I promised to give a copy to,
> please contact me.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 12:08:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22919;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00e401be23ad$f3580960$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture  and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:55:29 -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_00D2_01BE2373.32C5FD40"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qBtoG2.0.1c5.yWjRs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25273
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_00D2_01BE2373.32C5FD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This one,too or The SuperKam, Akira.

http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/detector.html


------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BE2373.32C5FD40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="EWI Research Group at UW (2).url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="EWI Research Group at UW (2).url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/detector.html
Modified=801A135DAD23BE0199

------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BE2373.32C5FD40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 12:09:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16061;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:01:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:01:13 -0800
Message-ID: <00e501be23ad$f47d0160$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:55:48 -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_00DE_01BE2373.3E225080"
Resent-Message-ID: <"GgDqw2.0.mw3.9SjRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25272
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01BE2373.3E225080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You might go this route Akira.

http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/


------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01BE2373.3E225080
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="EWI Research Group at UW.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="EWI Research Group at UW.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/
Modified=A0DE9AE2AC23BE0188

------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01BE2373.3E225080--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 12:20:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24203;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:17:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:17:47 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209201426.0119e424 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, 09 Dec 1998 15:14:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Is there any law?
Resent-Message-ID: <"jTG2l.0.xv5.fhjRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25274
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 10:58 AM 12/9/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 09:51 12/9/98 -0500, Dennis C. Lee wrote:
>
>>You wouldn't have anything pre 1947 from USA?
>
>Looking in the Herzberg & Monfils paper, I see that James and Coolidge
>(names  sound English, at least) derived Do from quantum theoretical
>calculations and got a value 0.03% lower than Beutler's experimental value.
>(H.M. James and A. Coolidge, L. Chem. Phys. 1, 825, (1933).
>
>BTW, Beutler's value was only 60 parts per million lower than the most
>recent value obtained experimentally by Balakrishnan.  Balakrishnan's value
>matches that obtained by Herzberg in 1970 to within 6 ppm and it matches a
>recent theoretical calculation by Kolos, Szalewicz, and Monkhorst to within
>0.2 ppm.
>
>Hmmmm!...a 60 ppm discrepancy between 1935 and now...maybe there IS an
>NSA-sponsored conspiracy to conceal the truth about the hydrogen molecule...

I wonder if there's a history of how the investigation of Do for hydrogen
evolved? Langmuir discovered lead amalgam cathodes produced nascent hydrogen
in 1912 I believe. When did the era of the oil barons first start? The
experimental Do reference would have to be prior to this.

Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 13:02:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03546;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:53:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:53:07 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <366ED5C8.48E5 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:55:52 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture  and O-U Reactions
References: <00e401be23ad$f3580960$12441d26 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"aGV8q2.0.Kt.pCkRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25275
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 9, 1998

Vortex,

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
 
> This one, too ---

Ah, A SNO job!

-ak- :)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 13:34:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19613;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:32:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:32:46 -0800
Message-ID: <011901be23ba$bfb741e0$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture  and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:26:55 -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: <"AahpG2.0.No4.-nkRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25276
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: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

LOL! Good One, Akira.  :-)


>December 9, 1998
>
>Vortex,
>
>Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>
>> This one, too ---
>
>Ah, A SNO job!

A Cardinal Rule of Science: Find out how much they know, then SNOW THEM
UNDER.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick


>
>-ak- :)
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 14:44:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13186;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:39:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:39:59 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209224702.01168d48 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, 09 Dec 1998 17:47:02 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture  and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"f5_a91.0.xD3.-mlRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25277
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 02:26 PM 12/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
(snip)
>A Cardinal Rule of Science: Find out how much they know, then SNOW THEM
>UNDER.  :-)

That doesn't sound like resonance to me.

Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 14:52:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17743;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:51:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:51:13 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981209225740.011ae9cc 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, 09 Dec 1998 17:57:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"4JLV53.0.4L4.WxlRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25278
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;

At 09:42 AM 12/9/98 -0800, you wrote:

>How does this translate into a laboratory experiment setup with
>appropriate data acquisition equiptment?

Data acquisition? How about high resolution infrared for the CF temperature
range in question. Let's see where the heat is, and at what level.

What about that monatomic palladium spontaneous fission paper? How many
volts does Deuteron K-capture require? Is it within the range of CF
parameters? Tesla needed 15kv for iron. What about monatomics?


Regards;
Dennis





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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 16:17:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA13008;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:16:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:16:07 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b294c10c262a [208.228.222.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:23:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"yZ1_D1.0.5B3.6BnRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25279
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:53 AM 12/9/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>
>D + LN ---> Tritium + 1.415 Mev which restores the "LN" to the Normal
>Neutron Mass.
>
>Or, the LN can go into and cause Transmutation or Fissioning of nuclei.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Regards,    Frederick


Some questions:

(1) Why is it that in many millions of bubble chamber events, analysed in
detail by computer, there has not been seen any evidence for a light
neutron?

(2) If a light neutron exists and is essentially indistinguishable from a
heavy neutron, except by the energy (mass) it carries, then why are we not
confronted with the "dead physicist" syndrome?  The neutron mean free path
is sufficient to get it clear of most CF experiments (some water and
enclosures) and into the ambient environment.  Transmutation, etc., should
thus, by your theory, be occuring with vigor in the general vicinity of CF
experiments, not just within the electrodes or apparatus.  However, many CF
experiments have been instrumented for neutron detection and none were
found.

(3) Since there must be some sigificant difference bewteen the actions of
light neutrons, since the flux of light neutrons necessary to account for
CF energy releases must be massive, yet goes undetected, can you suggest
some means of building a light neutron detector?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 16:56:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29861;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:55:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:55:33 -0800
Message-ID: <013401be23d7$1303a7a0$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:49:43 -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: <"kVUxe3.0.OI7.4mnRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25280
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>
Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Horace Heffner wrote:


>At 9:53 AM 12/9/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>
>>
>>D + LN ---> Tritium + 1.415 Mev which restores the "LN" to the Normal
>>Neutron Mass.
>>
>
>Some questions:
>
>(1) Why is it that in many millions of bubble chamber events, analysed in
>detail by computer, there has not been seen any evidence for a light
>neutron?
When/where have you EVER SEEN a Neutral Particle in a Bubble Chamber
Photograph?
>
>(2) If a light neutron exists and is essentially indistinguishable from a
>heavy neutron, except by the energy (mass) it carries, then why are we not
>confronted with the "dead physicist" syndrome?

Horse Puckey! If the LN is created in the Pd lattice and gives off a
neutrino when it reacts with the Pd, or in any other Transmutation/Fission
reaction except for the observed heat effects and some transmutation "ash"
and the regular neutron is essentially thermalized locally where are you
going to find a "dead physicist"?


>The neutron mean free path
>is sufficient to get it clear of most CF experiments (some water and
>enclosures) and into the ambient environment.  Transmutation, etc., should
>thus, by your theory, be occuring with vigor in the general vicinity of CF
>experiments, not just within the electrodes or apparatus.

Why is water used as a neutron moderator, Horace? How many
collisions does it take in H2O or D2O running about 6.7E22
deuterons or protons/gram to thermalize and/or adsorb a few
watts worth of neutrons when 1/2 the energy is shared by these at each
collision.


>However, many CF
>experiments have been instrumented for neutron detection and none were
>found.

Neutron Detectors in the cells? Was there any Boron 10 scintillators used in
the cells? Do you have any clue as to how high or low the absorption
cross-section for a LN might be?  If so, share it with us.
>
>(3) Since there must be some sigificant difference bewteen the actions of
>light neutrons, since the flux of light neutrons necessary to account for
>CF energy releases must be massive, yet goes undetected, can you suggest
>some means of building a light neutron detector?

I think the heat/ash that has been reported, speaks well to that question,
Horace.

What might resolve the issue is a Neutrino Detector and a thermometer.  I'll
leave it up to you to find the time in your "busy schedule" to suggest how
you might detect these against the background of about 2.7E10 Solar
Neutrinos/cm^2*sec that we survive sans the "dead scientist" syndrome.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 17:12:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05197;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:10:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:10:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199812100106.UAA21351 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Nuclear Transmuation - Dr. MIzuno's Book
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 20:12:36 -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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id RAA05158
Resent-Message-ID: <"uQ3XO.0.6H1.R-nRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25281
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Vortexians:

Please excuse the intrusion of this Press Release, but Dr. Mizuno's book -- Jed Rothwell's translation, plus the extra material inluded makes this a very good book.

Copies are ready to be sent from our publishing office.

Best, Gene

*************

                                                                      PRESS RFELEASE:

From:

Infinite Energy Magazine
INFINITE ENERGY PRESS
P.O. Box 2816,  Concord, NH 03302-2816  
 e-mail: editor infinite-energy.com
Ph: 603-228-4516   Fx: 603-224-5975
 website: http://www.infinite-energy.com

                                          For more information please contact:
                                        Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor-in-Chief		         December 1998

******Infinite Energy Press publishes NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION, pioneering cold fusion book by Japanese scientist.******

Concord, New Hampshire:  When NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION: The Reality of Cold Fusion was published in Japanese, its press run sold out quickly in Japan.  Now its English translation with extensive new supporting material is available from Infinite Energy Press
 in a hardcover edition. (Available soon by other Internet distributors and by February 1999 in bookstores.)  This seminal work by Hokkaido University Nuclear Engineering Professor Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno will likely create a stir as the 10th anniversary (Mar
ch 23, 1999) of the cold fusion announcement approaches.

The news about cold fusion from the University of Utah in March 1989 was greeted with astonishment worldwide.  Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons had claimed that an electrochemical cell with heavy water electrolyte and a palladium cathode gave rise
 to so much excess energy that the mysterious phenomenon had to be nuclear, and was probably a process related to nuclear fusion.  Many scientists quickly took sides for or against cold fusion‹mostly against.  By the end of the summer the experts claimed 
cold fusion didn't exist.  They said it was an experimental error and could not be reproduced.  Actually, the story had barely begun.  Provocative research had never ended.  Cold fusion was and is very much alive.  In this book, Dr. Mizuno describes both 
the dark and bright sides of the cold fusion story: the frustration, the boredom, the endless guerrilla war with scientists who wanted to stop the research, science journalists who appeared to thrive on the outpouring of supposedly negative results, fruit
less battles to publish a paper or be heard at a physics conference, but then also the triumph of dramatic experimental results in the production of huge excess energy and the paradigm busting discovery of the low-energy transmutation of heavy elements fo
und on cold fusion electrodes.  It is impossible for one book to encompass the now expanding worldwide effort to understand the cold fusion enigma, but for those who want to learn about the rest of the story, this account of one scientist's experience on 
the frontiers of knowledge is an excellent beginning.

Author Biography:  Tadahiko Mizuno was born in Asahigawa City, Hokkaido, Japan in 1945.  He graduated from the Department of Applied Physics, College of Engineering, Hokkaido National University in 1968.  In 1973 he received his Ph.D. in applied physics. 
 Among his achievements in cold fusion were the first extensive reports of neutron measurements in Japan, pioneering work on loaded, solid-state proton conductors, and key new studies of transmutation products.  Presently, he is an Assistant Professor of 
Nuclear Engineering, College of Engineering, Hokkaido University.

Review: 
"I find this frank and open exposition by Dr. Mizuno to be the most thoughtful, most interesting, and most helpful scientifically of all the books to date about 'cold fusion.' In the process of recounting his experiences and views, Dr. Mizuno provides an 
important glimpse into how research often evolves in practice and how the process can plunge into a chaotic maze in some cases, like 'cold fusion.'"
             Professor George Miley, University of Illinois, Fusion Studies Laboratory

Title: NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION: The Reality of Cold Fusion
Author: Tadahiko Mizuno         
English Edition Translator: Jed Rothwell of Infinite Energy Press
152 Pages,  Hardcover, Color Plates, Glossary, Cold Fusion Timeline 
Appendices: Two Technical Papers
Retail Price: U.S. $29.95 (add $3.00 shipping within US and Canada)        ISBN: 1892925001       Publisher: Infinite Energy Press
Publication Date:  December 1, 1998

Outside North America: Price is $39.95 (this price includes shipping)

















From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 18:26:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01158;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:25:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:25:30 -0800
Message-ID: <014b01be23e3$a13f9680$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:20:08 -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: <"b2vFJ.0.wH.P4pRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25282
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brodzinski, Ronald L <ron.brodzinski pnl.gov>
To: 'Frederick J Sparber' <fjsparb sprintmail.com>; vortex-l@eskimo.com
<vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Dr. Ron L. Brodzinski (PNL) wrote:


>I've only been listening, but now I've got to jump in with some comments.
Mine
>will follow Fred's below.
>
>Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick J Sparber [SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 4:50 PM
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov
> Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
>
> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>
> >At 9:53 AM 12/9/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>D + LN ---> Tritium + 1.415 Mev which restores the "LN" to the Normal
> >>Neutron Mass.
> >>
> >
> >Some questions:
> >
> >(1) Why is it that in many millions of bubble chamber events, analysed
>in
> >detail by computer, there has not been seen any evidence for a light
> >neutron?
> When/where have you EVER SEEN a Neutral Particle in a Bubble Chamber
> Photograph?
>
> Neutral particles are "seen" and tracked all the time in Bubble Chamber
>experiments.  They are the "space" between charged particle tracks.
>
> >
> >(2) If a light neutron exists and is essentially indistinguishable from
>a
> >heavy neutron, except by the energy (mass) it carries, then why are we
>not
> >confronted with the "dead physicist" syndrome?
>
> Horse Puckey! If the LN is created in the Pd lattice and gives off a
> neutrino when it reacts with the Pd, or in any other
>Transmutation/Fission
> reaction except for the observed heat effects and some transmutation
>"ash"
> and the regular neutron is essentially thermalized locally where are you
> going to find a "dead physicist"?
>
> Regular neutrons are not "essentially thermalized locally."  The mean
>crow-flight distance of a neutron in aqueous medium is about 8 cm, and some
go a
>hell of a lot farther.  If we didn't have "dead physicists" we would never
get a
>nuclear reactor to work because the neutrons either would never get out of
the
>fuel, or, if they did, they wouldn't get back in to sustain the reaction.
>
>
> >The neutron mean free path
> >is sufficient to get it clear of most CF experiments (some water and
> >enclosures) and into the ambient environment.  Transmutation, etc.,
>should
> >thus, by your theory, be occuring with vigor in the general vicinity of
>CF
> >experiments, not just within the electrodes or apparatus.
>
> Why is water used as a neutron moderator, Horace? How many
> collisions does it take in H2O or D2O running about 6.7E22
> deuterons or protons/gram to thermalize and/or adsorb a few
> watts worth of neutrons when 1/2 the energy is shared by these at each
> collision.
>
> See the above answer.  By the way, the mean crow-flight distance in D2O
>is 111 cm!
>
>
> >However, many CF
> >experiments have been instrumented for neutron detection and none were
> >found.
>
> Neutron Detectors in the cells? Was there any Boron 10 scintillators
>used in
> the cells? Do you have any clue as to how high or low the absorption
> cross-section for a LN might be?  If so, share it with us.
>
> I'll pass on the hypothetical light neutron, but I sure looked for
>regular neutrons (which I believe is a by-product of the light neutron if I
read
>this correctly), and the number observed was identically zero.  I assure
you I
>looked more carefully than anybody else in the world, and they don't exist.
> >
> >(3) Since there must be some sigificant difference bewteen the actions
>of
> >light neutrons, since the flux of light neutrons necessary to account
>for
> >CF energy releases must be massive, yet goes undetected, can you
>suggest
> >some means of building a light neutron detector?
>
> I think the heat/ash that has been reported, speaks well to that
>question,
> Horace.
>
> Heat/ash would hardly fulfill the requirements of logic as the
>unmistakable fingerprint of a "light neutron" reaction.  Surely something
else
>can produce heat/ash - a match maybe.
>
> What might resolve the issue is a Neutrino Detector and a thermometer.
>I'll
> leave it up to you to find the time in your "busy schedule" to suggest
>how
> you might detect these against the background of about 2.7E10 Solar
> Neutrinos/cm^2*sec that we survive sans the "dead scientist" syndrome.
>:-)
>
> Forget the neutrino detector crap.  If that were possible with the
>sensitivity required to make these measurements it would have been done
years
>ago to watch the bad guys touch off nukes.  Since you need a detector the
size
>of Homestake or Kamiokande, its not a readily portable commodity.  Also the
>"dead scientist" syndrome doesn't apply here because the cross section for
>neutron interactions in a persons body and neutrino interactions in a
persons
>body differ by 20-30 orders of magnitude.
>
> Regards,    Frederick
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Horace Heffner
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 19:45:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA30157;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:36:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:36:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209223330.00689d64 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 22:33:30 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"C0cpJ2.0.7N7.G7qRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25283
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Preliminary note on December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test

by Jed Rothwell and Ed Wall

Copyright Cold Fusion Technology, 1998

In the series of tests from December 4 through Dec. 9, 1998, Ed Wall, Jed
Rothwell and Ralph Pope tested a kinetic furnace installed in a machine
shop located in Cumming, Georgia, off of Georgia Route 400. Kinetic
furnaces were tested at this location in April 1998 by Mallove and
Rothwell, and in November by Rothwell.

Based on the December results, we believe our April and November reports
were incorrect, and there was no excess heat. The error was in technique
rather than instruments or formula. In the December tests we used an
improved technique, and a computer, an HP 34970A Data Acquisition system,
and an array of 11 K-Type 20 gage wire thermocouples (4 on the inlet and 7
on the outlet side). The thermocouples were calibrated carefully through
the temperature range of interest and compared to NIST traceable mercury
thermometers. At the same time we used the computerized instruments, we
repeated the tests using the same relatively crude, hand held instruments
ammeters and thermometers employed in November. In this second test  with
hand-held electronic, alcohol and mercury thermometers, we measured no
excess heat, thus confirming the computer thermocouple readings.

The biggest problem with April and November experiments was the lack of a
calibration heater. This was not an error or an oversight -- we did not
have time to install one during these preliminary, one-day tests. The tests
in Bow, New Hampshire, were conducted over two months, and they employed a
calibration heater to avoid dependence on air speed measurements and the
formula. As reported here and in Infinite Energy magazine, these tests
never showed significant excess heat.

At the start of the December tests in Cumming, the calibration heater was
installed and run at three power levels. All tests were done with the
heater in place, whether it was used or not, to maintain consistent airflow
pattern. When the kinetic furnace was turned on for the first run on
December 4, it was immediately apparent that it was not producing excess
heat. This left two possibilities, which we investigated over the next five
days:

1. That the previous results were an artifact.

2. That the machine previously produced excess heat, but it was not
producing it on December 4. We tried changing the rotor, the water, the air
flow speed and other parameters which we hypothesized might have a
controlling effect on an excess heat phenomenon. 

To check for possibility 1, an artifact, we began by repeating the tests
with the thermometers, hand-held ammeters, and other instruments used in
the previous tests. We placing the thermometers in the same locations as
the computerized thermocouple arrays. The hand-held instruments were used
at the same time as the computerized equipment, during both calibration
heater runs and live kinetic furnace runs. The handheld instruments showed
the same 9 or ten degree Fahrenheit Delta T as the computerized
thermocouples, which indicates no excess heat. We then moved the
thermometers to a location roughly as far away from the kinetic furnace as
Rothwell selected in November and we observed a 13 or 14 degree Fahrenheit
Delta T.

This brought to mind a hypothesis discussed by Horace Heffner in the
Vortex-L forum, that a warm stream of air was moving from the outlet duct
back to the kinetic furnace inlet. We looked for a stream of air by placing
the anemometer next to the outlet duct, at a spot 50 cm back from the end
of the duct, towards the kinetic furnace. We moved the impeller around,
searching for stream of warm air, checking the left side of the duct, the
right side, the top and bottom. The anemometer is quite sensitive to small
streams of moving air. The impeller did not spin, so we conclude there was
no discrete stream of air going from the outlet duct back towards the
kinetic furnace. However, the hypothesis stuck in mind, so we did a more
careful examination on the air surrounding the kinetic furnace and duct on
all sides. We now believe there is an area of warm circulated air around
the machine that is warm in comparison with the greater volume of the room.
This was more apparent during tests on Sunday when the machine shop was
deserted and the air in the rest of the building was quiescent. (The
machine shop is a 5000 square foot steel frame building with the ceiling 17
feet high at the eaves.) Outside of this envelope of warm air around the
machine, at locations 20 and 30 feet away, the ambient air temperature was
roughly 13 degrees cooler than the kinetic furnace outlet, and roughly 3
degrees cooler than the air surrounding the inlet. Thus, the actual Delta T
temperature between inlet and outlet was 9 or 10 degrees, indicating no
excess heat.

In April and November, I (Rothwell) measured the inlet temperature at a
spot too far from the kinetic furnace, outside the cloud of warm air.  I
picked this spot because Ralph Pope cautioned me not to place the sensors
too close to the furnace where heat radiating from it might affect the
sensors. The problem stemmed from a more basic weakness in our test setup.
We have not been doing the calorimetry the way an HVAC engineer tests a
furnace. The HVAC engineer places the inlet temperature sensor at the
furnace return duct, where inlet air is concentrated in a single point
source. In our tests we did not know precisely where the inlet air
originated because we did not have a concentrated point source. When we
realized this, we constructed an inlet duct. The inlet was initially about
20" x 6" located 6" below the bottom of the furnace, in a source of cool
air.  We believe there is no heat path from the kinetic furnace rotor or
the calibration heater back to the thermocouples. In runs with the
calibration heater, the heat balance computed according to the formula came
out close to unity, with a C.O.P. between 96 and 106%. This inlet duct
draws warm air from the cloud surrounding the kinetic furnace and its
environs, but that makes no difference.

After installing the inlet duct and making other improvements we tested
intensively for three days. Based on these tests and the exhaustive testing
in Bow, we conclude that the three machines we have tested never produced
excess heat. It remains possible that a kinetic furnace produced excess
heat in earlier tests or in tests at Dunn Laboratories, Inc. or elsewhere,
but we did not observed any excess, and we retract previous claims of
excess heat in the April and November tests. 

Rotor heat up rates were very similar to those measured in Bow, and rotor
steady state temperatures were nowhere near those reported by Ralph Pope
(140 - 150 degrees Fahrenheit).  Such high temperatures would be difficult
to explain, except as apparent and strong excess heat, but they could not
be confirmed.  Attempts were made to increase the rotor temperature by
restricting the intake plenum cross-section area.  The rotor temperature
was raised ~10 degrees by this method, but this introduced another factor.
The air moved much faster in the intake than the exhaust, so it was cooled
by the Bernoulli effect.  This was seen during calibration when the blower
alone was run for an extended period.  The C.O.P. came out slightly over
unity for the blower alone because we did not take into account the
Bernoulli equations.  (The actual C.O.P. must obviously be under unity for
the blower.)

We are still crunching numbers and reviewing the log book to support these
conclusions. We will post additional details and data next week, and a
paper in an upcoming issue of Infinite Energy magazine.

* End of File *

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 20:23:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10346;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:19:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:19:04 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b294f241fb9f [12.21.208.39]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:24:11 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"9MT7k1.0.JX2.rkqRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25284
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gee, it appears we have light neutron true believers present!  Ask a few
simple questions ...  8^)

At 7:20 PM 12/9/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>> >(1) Why is it that in many millions of bubble chamber events, analysed
>>in
>> >detail by computer, there has not been seen any evidence for a light
>> >neutron?
>> When/where have you EVER SEEN a Neutral Particle in a Bubble Chamber
>> Photograph?


I did not say "SEE" I said detected.  I am no expert but you appear to be
completely clueless to the fact that the tracks are typically automaticaly
anlysed by computer, at least in a prliminary screening.  A "missing" track
between collision points has meaning to even a computer program.


>>
>> Neutral particles are "seen" and tracked all the time in Bubble Chamber
>>experiments.  They are the "space" between charged particle tracks.


But that is what I am saying.  At least we agree on something.  Computer
programs can recognize impinging particle tracks and the absence thereof
and identify likely products.


>> >(2) If a light neutron exists and is essentially indistinguishable from
>>a
>> >heavy neutron, except by the energy (mass) it carries, then why are we
>>not
>> >confronted with the "dead physicist" syndrome?
>>
>> Horse Puckey!


Very scientific analysis.  8^)  You can not have it both ways - either the
light neutron is like a neutron or it is not.  If it is not - it should
have been detected long ago by its special qualities.  If it masquerades as
a neutron, thus hiding its discovery, then using it as a the magic elixer
for CF or LENR reactions is nonsensical, because a massive neutron flux of
the ordinary kind would mostly escape typical CF cells and kill the
physicists.


>If the LN is created in the Pd lattice and gives off a
>> neutrino when it reacts with the Pd,


Forget neutrinos.  Their only significance to this conversation is only
theoretical - in preserving spin, momentum, and energy.  This is only a red
herring - adding unnecessary obfuscation of the clear fact that you can not
have it both ways with the light neutron itself.  Either it acts like a
neutron or it does not.


>or in any other
>>Transmutation/Fission
>> reaction except for the observed heat effects and some transmutation
>>"ash"
>> and the regular neutron is essentially thermalized locally where are you
>> going to find a "dead physicist"?


The problem is in the fact that either the cross sections are like a
neutron's or not.  If not, the light neutron should have been noticed in
various particle experiments - espcially due to the fact that
positron-electron annihilation experiments which produce neutrons should
produce another peak at slighly lower energy to account for a resonance at
the predicted 1.00352 AMU for the light neutron.  I would suggest this as a
means to "look" for the light neutron, but also suggest that the work has
likely already (unintentionally) been done with negative results.


>>
>> Regular neutrons are not "essentially thermalized locally."  The mean
>>crow-flight distance of a neutron in aqueous medium is about 8 cm, and some
>go a
>>hell of a lot farther.


This only proves my point that if the light neutron is like the heavy ones,
especially with respect to cross sections, then we should see some dead
physicists.



>If we didn't have "dead physicists" we would never
>get a
>>nuclear reactor to work because the neutrons either would never get out of
>the
>>fuel, or, if they did, they wouldn't get back in to sustain the reaction.


Nuclear reactors, thank goodness, have more shielding and moderation than
that provided by a couple cm of water and glass.


>>
>>
>> >The neutron mean free path
>> >is sufficient to get it clear of most CF experiments (some water and
>> >enclosures) and into the ambient environment.  Transmutation, etc.,
>>should
>> >thus, by your theory, be occuring with vigor in the general vicinity of
>>CF
>> >experiments, not just within the electrodes or apparatus.
>>
>> Why is water used as a neutron moderator, Horace? How many
>> collisions does it take in H2O or D2O running about 6.7E22
>> deuterons or protons/gram to thermalize and/or adsorb a few
>> watts worth of neutrons when 1/2 the energy is shared by these at each
>> collision.
>>
>> See the above answer.  By the way, the mean crow-flight distance in D2O
>>is 111 cm!


This all goes to prove *my* point.


>>
>>
>> >However, many CF
>> >experiments have been instrumented for neutron detection and none were
>> >found.
>>
>> Neutron Detectors in the cells? Was there any Boron 10 scintillators
>>used in
>> the cells?


There has been plenty of work with BF3 detectors - with negative results.
There have been numerous experiments which detected neutrons, but at very
low levels that did not account for either the transmutations or heat.  An
exception to this might be in higher energy regimes like Claytor's.


>Do you have any clue as to how high or low the absorption
>> cross-section for a LN might be?  If so, share it with us.

It does not matter.  Either it is nearly the same as a neutron or not.  In
the first case we should have dead physicist.  In the second, the particle
should have been detected longh ago.


>>
>> I'll pass on the hypothetical light neutron, but I sure looked for
>>regular neutrons (which I believe is a by-product of the light neutron if I
>read
>>this correctly), and the number observed was identically zero.  I assure
>you I
>>looked more carefully than anybody else in the world, and they don't exist.


I and undoubtedly others on this list would like to hear bout this.  Could
you describe your experiments here?



[snip neutrino nonsense]

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 20:35:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18290;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:34:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:34:42 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b29500ce66e3 [12.21.208.90]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:42:15 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
Resent-Message-ID: <"ETSRR3.0.dT4.YzqRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25285
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:33 PM 12/9/98, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Preliminary note on December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
>
>by Jed Rothwell and Ed Wall
>
>Copyright Cold Fusion Technology, 1998
>
>In the series of tests from December 4 through Dec. 9, 1998, Ed Wall, Jed
>Rothwell and Ralph Pope tested a kinetic furnace installed in a machine
>shop located in Cumming, Georgia, off of Georgia Route 400.
[snip}
>the heat balance computed according to the formula came
>out close to unity, with a C.O.P. between 96 and 106%.
[snip]


Good job - especially for air flow calorimetry!  Sorry about the results
being negative, but it is really great to see such a good effort in
progress.  Thanks for sharing your report with us.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 21:01:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA00020;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:00:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:00:26 -0800
Message-ID: <019001be23f9$48133600$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:54:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"D-zXr2.0.E.gLrRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25286
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>
Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Horace Heffner wrote:

Snip arguments...

>Gee, it appears we have light neutron true believers present!  Ask a few
>simple questions ...  8^)

You will note that I forwarded Ron Brodzinki's comments to our
exchange,Horace. Since Ron isn't a subscriber to Vortex-L he cannot respond
directly. Thus we can drag him through the mud with impunity. :-)

Also, the mass of the neutron is deduced from the 2.23 Mev binding energy in
Deuterium.

It looks like Ron defended your arguments, very
ably.

Just because you live near the North Pole in Alaska doesn't mean you're
Santa Claus.   :-)

BTW. Don't sit on the ice up there, you could get POLAROIDS. :-)


Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec  9 22:04:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23731;
	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:02:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:02:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130504b29518cbea13 [38.14.54.39]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:12:38 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: The ACC TRANSCAPACITOR
Resent-Message-ID: <"eD0-L1.0.jo5.GGsRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25287
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I wanted to pass along some interesting pro and con information regarding
the ACC TRANSCAPACITOR:


"AMERICAN COMPUTER COMPANY unearths previously unknown electronic device it
claims it obtained by analyzing notes about Alien Artifact examined by Bell
Labs 50 years ago, notes that were sold ACC by an unnamed source...

New York, NY December 7, 1997 - For Immediate Release

In an earthshaking Press Release, the American Computer Company, Cranford,
NJ (http://american-computer.com) announced:

a) In July of 1947, the Department of the Army Air Force, secured debris
from one crashed Aircraft and a complete Aircraft which was landed by
occupants trying to determine the status of their comrades from the first
crash site.  The Aircraft captured by the Air Force, it is said, are
allegedly of ExtraTerrestrial Manufacture, bearing engineering wonders
previously unseen by humans.

b) As a result of an indepth study by ACC of notes and things it purchased
from an unnamed source who had worked on the project involving IBM and AT&T
during 1947, who were hired to analyze the wreck and the intact craft by
the Air Force in August of 1947, -- ACC has elected to announce that it has
discovered a previously undetected electronic component, one that it feels
the Air Force, IBM and Bell Labs overlooked.

At least one past analysis of the debris allegedly led to AT&T Bell Labs
announcement of the Transistor in September of 1947, and yet, ACC has
indicated that Bell Labs, the Army and Air Force Research Labs, and IBM
Research "completely missed one of the key components in the debris they
were given to analyze".

c) The component American Computer Company discovered, has been dubbed the
"Transfer Capacitor".  ACC has decided to refer to it as the Transcap or
Transcapacitor, and as the "T-CAP" for short.  ACC has noticed that it is
reserving these names, along with the Transpacitor, as ACC Trademarks and
Usage Marks.  It has several advanced features heretofor unidentified in
the electronics industry, and it is UNRELATED to the Transistor in
composition:

ACC claimed that the "T-CAP" can store energy in "levels" using a single
microelectronic component device that could be manufactured as small as
physics permits, having only four fundamental elements (the Transistor has
only three), to whit, as small as a small part of a Micron, at the
molecular level, smaller even than a single Transistor as are used in
today's microchips.

ACC said that the energy levels the T-CAP can store can represent
mathematical values up to 10 to the 23rd power, and can be recalled, all
using only a single Transcap device and a simple circuit design. The
Transcap could revolutionize memory devices, as it replaces as many as 50
to 1000 Transistors used in common Memory Chips.  A version of the Transcap
can be used as a comparator to enable "analog boolean mathematics" as are
commonly used in Computers today. As a result, it could revolutionize the
size of computers, reducing them to 1/50th to 1/1000th of their size, or
increasing memory capacity by 50 to 1000 times in the same space as today's
common memory systems."

continued.... see referenced web-site
--------------------------------------

I thought the above to be a joke at first, but to my amazement... ACC is
truly admitted to reverse engineering alien technology, recovered by the
USAF, some 50 years ago, near the famous Roswell UFO site! Evidently, Bell
labs and AT$T had first shots at examining the miniaturized
electronic-treasure trove, which led to the development of transistor, and
integrated designs, soon after.

However, for some reason... the transcapacitor design, was overlooked, or
not understood, at the time? ACC engineers, obtained these original
drawings of the hardware, and understood the possibility and investigated
the functional aspects of the bookkeeper's drawings?

The examination of these blueprints, led to the ACC into the conceptual
development, and testing of Transcap design, and the liquid memory concept.
These designs should, once perfected... facilitate the replacement of
magnetic hard drives with small solid state units, with no moving parts?
These chips will hold TeraBytes of data, in a much smaller space, than a HD
of today's vintage.

The prospects for the future of this deciphered alien high tech, is almost
unlimited. Bionics... here we come, in the near future, if this is all
true. Don't see how a reputable company like ACC that developed the FIRST
windows based software... before MicroSoft... would willingly perpetrate a
hoax at its web site!

There are several other reputable military figures, that have tried to tell
the public about this reverse engineered alien tech, in the past... but
they were all crazy? Right? I don't think so. I believe that there indeed
has been a massive cover up of alien related information, for way too long,
by many governments of the world.

The time is right for revelations, I believe, and am happy to see some
things like this begin to surface from reputable sources, (at least I feel
that this company should be very honest), as were several other individuals
in the past. Don't think that the socioeconomics of the world will collapse
from such revelations, not at this point in time.

Military and civilian individuals in the past were harassed and ridiculed
for attempting to reveal certain elements of knowledge related to the
existence of alien beings in our air space. Hopefully, the governments of
the world will soon realize that a cover up of this magnitude, over so many
years, is not a wise or fruitful venture, and will begin to willingly,
release relevant information to the public, who show an interest in this
release of Top Secret documents, so long awaited by reputable UFO
investigators.

Belgium is the only country to my knowledge that readily admits to the
existence of probable alien UFO, in their airspace, and allows the public
access to relevant info. Russia appears to be loosening up on what it knows
of UFO activity and the result of their long time investigations of the
subject. They are beginning to release some info on what they have known of
the US involvement also, but this is a slow process, that will take a long
time, I am sure.

You can believe these ACC revealed reports or copied alien technology, are
all a hoax if you like, but I am betting that they are not. I don't believe
everything that I hear or read, but I've got a hunch that this is for real.
I suppose that only time will tell. :)

Thanks a LOT for pointing the way to these ACC revelations of using USAF
recovered alien technology. Sorta made my day! I will be eagerly looking to
the future, and awaiting further developments from ACC. Wonder what ACC's
ticker symbol is? Couldn't find it yesterday... but maybe they are
privately owned? Does anyone know about this? just curious... and I am
betting on a big success story, unless the powers of the dark side, don't
intercede in some underhanded way.

--- James Paul Moore

_________________________________


And, for an OPPOSING view of ACC (passed along by Bert Hickman), see:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/9587/index.html

Best regards,

Evan Soule'


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 01:00:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA05988;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:55:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:55:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2953df980a4 [12.21.208.90]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:02:32 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "Brodzinski, Ronald L" <ron.brodzinski@pnl.gov>
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kef3v.0.QT1.bnuRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25288
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:43 PM 12/9/98, Brodzinski, Ronald L wrote:
>Me?  I think I supported everything YOU said.  Lest there be any confusion, I
>claim there are no neutrons of any kind emitted in "cold fusion" processes.
>
>Ron Brodzinski


Oh, sorry, I got confused by the interleaved dialog.  Anyway, it's all Fred
Sparber's fault, as usual, right Fred?   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 01:08:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA07841;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:02:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:02:58 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b2953fc0eba0 [208.228.222.31]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:10:24 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"RHIS22.0.Rw1.1vuRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25289
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:54 PM 12/9/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>You will note that I forwarded Ron Brodzinki's comments to our
>exchange,Horace. Since Ron isn't a subscriber to Vortex-L he cannot respond
>directly. Thus we can drag him through the mud with impunity. :-)
[snip]

Hey, the Congress and special prosecutor's office ought to look into this
technique.   8^)


>It looks like Ron defended your arguments, very
>ably.

Sorry for the mix up.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 04:29:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA06674;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 04:28:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 04:28:06 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981210123518.0114a4dc 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, 10 Dec 1998 07:35:18 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Neutron Emissions and Dead Scientists
Resent-Message-ID: <"5O4QT1.0.Ce1.MvxRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25290
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vo;

Could the blue light of water implosion be a neutron emission? This may
explain Viktor Schauberger's as well as Stan Meyer's demise? Could Brown's
gas implosion reaction also generate this neutron emission? Is there a
possible dead scientist pattern here? Perhaps this may be one of the reasons
a certain most honored professor said that "the first three aren't good". He
also said that a possible magnet system "strokes" energy to usefullness. It
doesn't "hammer" out energy. Once again, the wisdom of this most honored
professor's experience and knowledge is made apparent by withstanding the
test of time. The level of detail and refinement of his designs is only more
appreciated when one realizes time and again that this most honored
professor has been there, had done that, and has already progressed to the
next higher levels!


Regards;
Dennis



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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 06:02:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA28825;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 06:00:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 06:00:29 -0800
Message-ID: <001301be2445$188a1b00$3249ccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:35:57 -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: <"g-hDM.0.E27.yFzRs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25291
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
To: vortex-L eskimo.com <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 10:40 PM
Subject: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test


>Preliminary note on December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
>
>by Jed Rothwell and Ed Wall
>
>Copyright Cold Fusion Technology, 1998
>
>In the series of tests from December 4 through Dec. 9, 1998, Ed Wall, Jed
>Rothwell and Ralph Pope tested a kinetic furnace installed in a machine
>shop located in Cumming, Georgia, off of Georgia Route 400. Kinetic
>furnaces were tested at this location in April 1998 by Mallove and
>Rothwell, and in November by Rothwell.
>
>Based on the December results, we believe our April and November reports
>were incorrect, and there was no excess heat. The error was in technique
>rather than instruments or formula. In the December tests we used an
>improved technique, and a computer, an HP 34970A Data Acquisition system,
>and an array of 11 K-Type 20 gage wire thermocouples (4 on the inlet and 7
>on the outlet side). The thermocouples were calibrated carefully through
>the temperature range of interest and compared to NIST traceable mercury
>thermometers. At the same time we used the computerized instruments, we
>repeated the tests using the same relatively crude, hand held instruments
>ammeters and thermometers employed in November. In this second test  with
>hand-held electronic, alcohol and mercury thermometers, we measured no
>excess heat, thus confirming the computer thermocouple readings.
>
>The biggest problem with April and November experiments was the lack of a
>calibration heater. This was not an error or an oversight -- we did not
>have time to install one during these preliminary, one-day tests. The tests
>in Bow, New Hampshire, were conducted over two months, and they employed a
>calibration heater to avoid dependence on air speed measurements and the
>formula. As reported here and in Infinite Energy magazine, these tests
>never showed significant excess heat.
>
>At the start of the December tests in Cumming, the calibration heater was
>installed and run at three power levels. All tests were done with the
>heater in place, whether it was used or not, to maintain consistent airflow
>pattern. When the kinetic furnace was turned on for the first run on
>December 4, it was immediately apparent that it was not producing excess
>heat. This left two possibilities, which we investigated over the next five
>days:
>
>1. That the previous results were an artifact.
>
>2. That the machine previously produced excess heat, but it was not
>producing it on December 4. We tried changing the rotor, the water, the air
>flow speed and other parameters which we hypothesized might have a
>controlling effect on an excess heat phenomenon.
>
>To check for possibility 1, an artifact, we began by repeating the tests
>with the thermometers, hand-held ammeters, and other instruments used in
>the previous tests. We placing the thermometers in the same locations as
>the computerized thermocouple arrays. The hand-held instruments were used
>at the same time as the computerized equipment, during both calibration
>heater runs and live kinetic furnace runs. The handheld instruments showed
>the same 9 or ten degree Fahrenheit Delta T as the computerized
>thermocouples, which indicates no excess heat. We then moved the
>thermometers to a location roughly as far away from the kinetic furnace as
>Rothwell selected in November and we observed a 13 or 14 degree Fahrenheit
>Delta T.
>
>This brought to mind a hypothesis discussed by Horace Heffner in the
>Vortex-L forum, that a warm stream of air was moving from the outlet duct
>back to the kinetic furnace inlet. We looked for a stream of air by placing
>the anemometer next to the outlet duct, at a spot 50 cm back from the end
>of the duct, towards the kinetic furnace. We moved the impeller around,
>searching for stream of warm air, checking the left side of the duct, the
>right side, the top and bottom. The anemometer is quite sensitive to small
>streams of moving air. The impeller did not spin, so we conclude there was
>no discrete stream of air going from the outlet duct back towards the
>kinetic furnace. However, the hypothesis stuck in mind, so we did a more
>careful examination on the air surrounding the kinetic furnace and duct on
>all sides. We now believe there is an area of warm circulated air around
>the machine that is warm in comparison with the greater volume of the room.
>This was more apparent during tests on Sunday when the machine shop was
>deserted and the air in the rest of the building was quiescent. (The
>machine shop is a 5000 square foot steel frame building with the ceiling 17
>feet high at the eaves.) Outside of this envelope of warm air around the
>machine, at locations 20 and 30 feet away, the ambient air temperature was
>roughly 13 degrees cooler than the kinetic furnace outlet, and roughly 3
>degrees cooler than the air surrounding the inlet. Thus, the actual Delta T
>temperature between inlet and outlet was 9 or 10 degrees, indicating no
>excess heat.
>
>In April and November, I (Rothwell) measured the inlet temperature at a
>spot too far from the kinetic furnace, outside the cloud of warm air.  I
>picked this spot because Ralph Pope cautioned me not to place the sensors
>too close to the furnace where heat radiating from it might affect the
>sensors. The problem stemmed from a more basic weakness in our test setup.
>We have not been doing the calorimetry the way an HVAC engineer tests a
>furnace. The HVAC engineer places the inlet temperature sensor at the
>furnace return duct, where inlet air is concentrated in a single point
>source. In our tests we did not know precisely where the inlet air
>originated because we did not have a concentrated point source. When we
>realized this, we constructed an inlet duct. The inlet was initially about
>20" x 6" located 6" below the bottom of the furnace, in a source of cool
>air.  We believe there is no heat path from the kinetic furnace rotor or
>the calibration heater back to the thermocouples. In runs with the
>calibration heater, the heat balance computed according to the formula came
>out close to unity, with a C.O.P. between 96 and 106%. This inlet duct
>draws warm air from the cloud surrounding the kinetic furnace and its
>environs, but that makes no difference.
>
>After installing the inlet duct and making other improvements we tested
>intensively for three days. Based on these tests and the exhaustive testing
>in Bow, we conclude that the three machines we have tested never produced
>excess heat. It remains possible that a kinetic furnace produced excess
>heat in earlier tests or in tests at Dunn Laboratories, Inc. or elsewhere,
>but we did not observed any excess, and we retract previous claims of
>excess heat in the April and November tests.
>
>Rotor heat up rates were very similar to those measured in Bow, and rotor
>steady state temperatures were nowhere near those reported by Ralph Pope
>(140 - 150 degrees Fahrenheit).  Such high temperatures would be difficult
>to explain, except as apparent and strong excess heat, but they could not
>be confirmed.  Attempts were made to increase the rotor temperature by
>restricting the intake plenum cross-section area.  The rotor temperature
>was raised ~10 degrees by this method, but this introduced another factor.
>The air moved much faster in the intake than the exhaust, so it was cooled
>by the Bernoulli effect.  This was seen during calibration when the blower
>alone was run for an extended period.  The C.O.P. came out slightly over
>unity for the blower alone because we did not take into account the
>Bernoulli equations.  (The actual C.O.P. must obviously be under unity for
>the blower.)
>
>We are still crunching numbers and reviewing the log book to support these
>conclusions. We will post additional details and data next week, and a
>paper in an upcoming issue of Infinite Energy magazine.
>
>* End of File *
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 07:26:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26274;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:23:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:23:45 -0800
Message-ID: <366FE7AC.1CCA earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:24:29 -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: Murray: Shanahan: Chubb, Storms:  band state theory,  1993 Storms artifacts  12.9.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TsLML2.0.HQ6.0U-Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25292
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 12.8.98
  Date:  Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:19:55 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:   rmforall earthlink.net

>      I would appreciate your forwarding the following post, which
> includes a minor correction to my last response to Dick.  The correction
> deals with a "somewhat subtle," but important point, concerning
> "coherent, resonant photons," that I mistated in the previous post.  In
> particular, in the ground state limit associated with the theory, these
> "photons" are all "off-mass shell"; i.e., they are virtual photons:
> their angular frequencies (and energies) are all very close to zero
> (their angular frequencies are not given  a "reciprocal lattice vector"
> x c, as stated in the post); while their wave-vectors are given by
> reciprocal lattice vectors.
>      The reason this point is important is because there is physics
> associated with it: a zero frequency photon (as in the Coulomb potential
> associated with static charges, for example) can impart momentum,
> instaneously, to moving charges located a finite distance away from it,
> coherently.  It is this feature of coherently resonating photons that
> explains how it is possible to eliminate the requirement that energy be
> dispersed locally in a potential nuclear process, involving a short
> lifetime, through a coherent, long-ranged form of interaction that
> resonants throughout the solid.
>
Well, I don't see much of the rest of this is worthy of reproduction so
let's just examine the above stuff to see precisely where all this is
headed. Are we supposed to believe that there is an infinite sea of
virtual photons, all off the mass shell, with angular frequencies and
energies near zero, coherently resonating with something?, transporting
huge amounts of energy and momentum, and doing it all over infinite
distances at infinite speed, but somehow remaining unique to this
particular system under rather unusual conditions that are devilishly
difficult to achieve experimentally?

I must say I find it hard to see just where all this imagined stuff is
supposed to connect to reality.  Somewhere we have to have quantitative
estimates of rates and strengths and probabilities and couplings. 
Otherwise, it seems to me we could not have confidence that any physical
system would ever exhibit any form of stable, reproducible behavior.  It
might at any second suddenly collapse into some form of degenerative
decay, the likes of which we have never
seen.                                  
So, what is it that might prevent the sort of dissipation of nuclear
energy that Scott Chubb proposes?  There are two areas that I think
ought to be explored further, just for starters.  Let us say we have a
nuclear state, such as two non-interacting deuterons, that is going to
undergo a transitions to become a 4He nucleus.  Part of this process has
involve the transport of some 23 MeV of energy to somewhere else.  Now,
for real photons, the phase space factor is largest when the number of
photons is smallest.  Why is that not so for this system?  What is it
that tilts the balance in favor of an infinite number of zero-energy
photons?

I also have a problem with the concept of doing this instantaneously
with no need to consider any form of intermediate state.  This, in part,
is why I keep coming back to my question about the internal nuclear wave
functions employed in this theory.  On that point I, once again, feel I
am being whipsawed back and forth between two contradictory statements. 
In one presentation, Scott Chubb writes 4 separate position coordinate
vectors, one for each of the four nucleons of a 4He and said, I thought,
that everthing has Bloch symmetry, i.e. any r is periodic mod R.

So I questioned whether it made sense to have neutrons flitting about
over the entire crystal.  The response I get is that of course they
don't do that. Each neutron stays real close to its personal proton just
as I would have guessed.  It is bound into a single potential well and
all the talk of Bloch symmetry of the wave function has vanished! 
You've got to stop doing this sort of nonsense at some point, Scott. 
Can't you just say, once and for all, what radial dependence you assume
for the interaction between a proton and a neutron within the deuteron?

If we can ever get beyond this deception concerning the radial
dependence of nucleon-nucleon potentials, perhaps we can move on to more
advanced topics like the angular momentum of the various nuclear
states.  I want to see you do the angular momentum algebra to get from
two deuterons to one 4He in its ground state.

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Shanahan: Storms: recombination artifact & McKubre data
12.3.98
  Date:  Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:51:06 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

I can certainly appreciate what a complex muddle Kirk has to
deal with to try to extract any information from the McKubre
data.

But having to cough up $10,000 in order to keep a copy of the
report?  That is weird!  I thought all this was supposed to
be open and available for anyone to examine.  My advice is
don't pay them a dime.  Don't even think of paying them a dime.

At least Ed Storms will send you copies of his paper for free,
and there are plenty of artifacts to examine in it.
I have now moved on to figure 6 captioned "Effect of jacket
temperature on the calibration constant when calibration is
done using the immersion heater and normal electrolysis with
a platinum cathode.

Granted that most measurements were made with a fixed (nearly)
jacket temperature, so the variations plotted in Fig. 6 need
not apply, I still find these data remarkable for what they
do tell us about the concept of there being a "calorimeter
constant."

The theory of the isoperibolic calorimeter is that (to first
order at least) the heat flux can be determined from a
single temperature difference measured across a thermal
boundary.  Thus a change in jacket temperature, while it
would be tracked by a change in the electrolyte temperature,
should not introduce a significant error as it is only the
temperature difference that is significant.

However, when we examine the Storms data of Fig. 6, it reveals
that the jacket temperature does actually have a rather strong
influence on the so-called calibration constant.

Of course this graph also reveals the difference between
the calibration by electrolysis vs. calibration by heater
that I mentioned before.  Let me just summarize by giving,
roughly, four different values of the "constant."

Heater at 10 C: 4.0 ;  Heater at 20 C: 4.26

Electrolysis at 10 C: 3.83;  Electrolysis at 20 C: 3.96 .

Now the author has little to say about these data beyond the
statement that, "Because most studies are made at jacket
temperatures neat 20 C, an exact knowledge of the effect of
jacket temperature is not necessary."  He then gives the
expression (including a correction for jacket temperature)
that is used to determine the heat flux:

  developed power (W) = 0.36 + (3.7 + 0.15Tj) delta T.

So, I was sort of pondering this dependence on jacket temperature
to see what it might be telling us.  When the jacket is colder
it seems to require a greater delta T to indicate the
same power production within the calorimeter.  Now I actually
believe that the heat flux exiting the cell and flowing into
the jacket should produce about the same delta T regardless
of the jacket temperature.  What is happening, I suggest, is that
the cooler jacket temperature makes more significant the heat
flux through that part of the boundary which is not jacketed,
i.e. the top plug.

Off the top of my head I am guessing that the data in figure 6
may be indicating that dropping the jacket temperature from
20 C to 10 C increases the heat flux through the top plug
by about 5% of the total power. I get the uneasy feeling
that moving a heat source up closer to that plug can, as
Kirk suggests, influence the experimental results, particularly
if the recombiner temperature is elevated much above the electrolyte
temperture.

Dick Blue

[Comments on 1993 Storms report by Rich Murray]  Fig. 6 has two data
points at 10 degrees C jacket temperature, giving  calibration constants
3.84 for normal electrolysis and 4.01  W/deltaT for heater, so the
difference is .17/3.84 = 4.4%.  There are no data from 10 to 17.5
degrees C.  The differences at 20 degrees C range from about 3.95 to
4.3, a difference of .35/3.95 = 8.9%.

The small cell is well surrounded by a water jacket that has a volume
many times the volume of the cell, according to Fig. 1, although
dimensions are not given.  The water flow rate is not given.  Water
flows in at the bottom left, and exits near the top right.  I wonder
whether the water flow forms a stream that spirals around the cell
without much turbulence and mixing.  This stream flow might change very
nonlinearly as the temperature of the cell and the distribution of
temperature on the surface of the cell changes.  If the stream
prodominantly happened to pick up most of the heat from the top of the
cell, by the recombiner, at high cell input power and temperature, then
an excess heat artifact would result.  Do the four test calibration
procedures include the difference that localized high temperatures at
the recombiner would make?

Fig.7, Apparent excess power determined by subjecting a platinum cathode
to bivalued charging at 0.13 and 2.8 A:  This is 38.4 W input power,
according to Fig. 14, at 2.8 A.  Storms claims 35 W input power on p.
234. Over a hundred data points are shown for 1000 minutes of run time. 
Typically, in his experimental runs, Storms applies "bivalue" charging
by alternating 30 min at 0.13 A with 30 or 60 min at 2.8 A.  Typical is
the data at about 800 to 900 minutes: jumping at the 2.8 A current from
-1 to +1.4 W, or - 2.6% to + 3.6%. These variations seem to happen
quickly throughout the 1000 min run.  On p. 234, he comments:
"This scatter is caused by local variations in the temperature within
the cell as well as by rapid changes in cell voltage caused by bubble
action."

A prudent evaluation would have to consider that a multitude of subtle
nonlinear effects are available to create apparent heat excursions as
large as 20% at the highest power level used, 38.4 W in the small cell. 
What is the volume of electrolyte, and the volume of the cell?  The
chemistry of the cell and recombiner is constantly changing: p. 232:
"Because of chemical interactions of lithium with oxygen in the
electrolyte and with carbon in the recombiner, the concentration of
lithium in the cell solution slowly decreases as Li2CO3 is formed on the
recombiner.  In addition, the solution gradually becomes saturated with
CO2."   This implies that the functioning of the recombiner is
constantly changing, and, indeed, recombiner failure, as Dick Blue noted
weeks ago, occured after apparent excess heat episodes.
How much heat is generated by the oxidation of the recombiner?  How much
and how quickly do changes in electrolyte conductivity occur?  Are any
gels, foams, and gunks forming in the cell, changing electrical and
thermal characteristics?]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 08:01:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06502;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:00:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:00:07 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com: theywood owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:58:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Heywood <theywood us.ibm.com>
X-Sender: theywood ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: transcapacitor
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95.981210105050.102532A-100000 ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"JriAA1.0.Wb1.60_Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25293
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

People ignoring the "transcapacitor" and ACC stuff because of its link
to supposedly alien technology and Roswell (like I had) might want to
take a look... now that it appears similar (identical?) results have
been produced by a Charles Harris at Berkeley National Labs. Look at
  http://accpc.com/kubos.htm
  http://accpc.com/12teraherz.htm
  http://lbl.gov (search whole site for "harris")

Seems to me that there may be links to cold fusion and transmutation
(surface phenomena, lattices, "divots", etc...).

Todd




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 08:32:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA15754;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:28:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:28:54 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <366FE94B.35D8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:31:23 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7cP6s2.0.vr3.5R_Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25294
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 10, 1998

Vortex,

Regrets on the outcome but congratulations on the seeming thoroughness
of the tests. My sympathies to Mr. Pope. Perhaps final analysis of the
tests may indicate some positive paths to take on the device.

Has any take apart analyis/examination been made of the rotors after the
tests? And were the rotor used the same constructuion as those used when
excess heat was originally reported by Pope & Perkins(?)?.

Now, on to the hooked up Griggs pump? And the Yusmars which now has a
Slovakian distributor?

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 09:00:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27354;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:58:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:58:49 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <366FF066.556E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:01:42 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"au1Bg2.0.Ih6.8t_Rs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25295
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 10, 1998

Vortex,

Just one nit-picky item. Jed mentioned use of an anemometer to trace air
flow around the furnace. Perhaps it is a sensitive instrument but
wouldn't smoke columns from cigarettes or incense give a better
qualitative idea of air flow? But then you would be subject to
second-hand smoke. :)

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 09:11:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32242;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:10:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:10:13 -0800
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:09:31 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
In-reply-to: <366FE94B.35D8 ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199812101710.KAA01967 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: <"sSl-o2.0.Zt7.p10Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25296
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:31 AM 12/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
>December 10, 1998
>
>Vortex,
>
>Regrets on the outcome...
>
>Now, on to the hooked up Griggs pump? And the Yusmars which now has a
>Slovakian distributor?
>
>-ak-
> 

And the Newman Motor. No, wait,....I forgot,.... they were going to set up
a cot for Joe in Scott's lab while he tested it. Right?

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 10:02:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20641;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:01:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:01:26 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:58:06 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <36700C97.ABA5E41 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:01:59 +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: transcapacitor
References: <Pine.A41.3.95.981210105050.102532A-100000 ppsclnt12.pok.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2RQlV3.0.L25.qn0Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25297
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I found no mail sent from "Lawrence Berkeley Scientist" to ACC as claimed on page http://accpc.com/kubos.htm.

"FROM Dr. KUBOS: Here is a quote from a brief 
     sent us by a Lawrence Berkeley Scientist 

   Posted by Dr. Ken Kubos on the AST IMAGINE Alien Science & Technology Forum Thursday, 3 September 1998, at 10:51 a.m., in response to Here is a quote from a brief sent us by a Lawrence Berkeley Scientist, posted by Charlie Gordon on Thursday, 3 Septemb
er 1998, at 8:50 a.m."

On this page found a copy from public release of Berkeley Lab "Electron Experiment Holds Promise For Electronics Industry (3/9/98)"

I concluded there is no relation between ACC and Berkeley Lab/Charles Harris. As ACC demonstrate nothing about the claimed technology and LBL link is unproved, this is a hoax or a fraud.

The phenomenon presented by Dr. Harris have no immediate application, or does not lead to a technology, but of course it is possible to build a technology based to this behaviour of electrons. So There was a chance for ACC to show a technology based to th
is phenomenon, but there wasn't.

ACC have nothing in their pocket.


Regards,

hamdi ucar


Todd Heywood wrote:
> 
> People ignoring the "transcapacitor" and ACC stuff because of its link
> to supposedly alien technology and Roswell (like I had) might want to
> take a look... now that it appears similar (identical?) results have
> been produced by a Charles Harris at Berkeley National Labs. Look at
>   http://accpc.com/kubos.htm
>   http://accpc.com/12teraherz.htm
>   http://lbl.gov (search whole site for "harris")
> 
> Seems to me that there may be links to cold fusion and transmutation
> (surface phenomena, lattices, "divots", etc...).
> 
> Todd

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 10:59:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08396;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:55:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:55:29 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <36700BA6.2CB1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:57:58 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Einstein, Truman,  Eisenhower, Vannever Bush and so on ---- 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VNTBD2.0.232.Xa1Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25298
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 10, 1998]

Vortex,

Dr. Robert M. Wood and his adult son scientist gave an interview report
on the acquisition of believed to be authenthic documentation material
from the Truman era (50's to '60) concerning downed UFO's around that
time. Important personages were 'in' on the secret.
 
According to the Woods (there will have a book out), the documents
identified three alien crafts and bodies (Roswell). The crafts were
tactile finger controlled. The United States reverse engineered the
technologies in the crafts, so they say. 

The interview was with Art Bell several nights ago. They may have a
repeat over the weekend.

Maybe this is why our goverment pays scant attention to CF? Old stuff.
:)

Dr. Woods is an active member of the Society for Scientific Exploration
and Host of the 14th SSE Conference held in Huntington Beach (June
1995). He lives in Newport Beach.

Dr. Eugene Mallove, also a member, should be acquainted with him. Might
make good material for IE ---? Energy from the Infinite.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 11:44:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22700;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:42:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:42:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981210140529.006899f4 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:05:29 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: transcapacitor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ynTmn3.0.cY5.aG2Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25299
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Please move this discussion to VortexB-L.

- JR

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 12:34:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14263;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:32:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:32:46 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b295d9205a1d [208.228.222.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:40:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"qpukt2.0.nU3.j_2Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25300
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In thinking further about the light neutron concept - suppose the light
neutron has a very short half life but very large cross section with Pd.
If the half life is short enough, and the mean velocity low enough, then
the existence of the light neutron is confined to the lattice and nearby,
so you don't get the dead physicist.   It is of interest that some CF
electrodes can make contact exposures on photographic film.  The light
neutron might not even be a particle at all, per se, but some other lose
association, which only arises in unusual circumstances.

CF isn't exactly the robust kind of thing you get in nuclear reactors.  A
short half life might be compensated by a large cross section.  Suppose CF
actually involves something like a "light neutron" - we are still left with
no insight as to how to engineer a CF device or increase the reliability of
exisiting devices, are we?  Thinking about this, if a short half life is
involved, the reaction rate would tend to be very sensitive to the velocity
of the emitted light neutrons.  If the emitted light neutrons have a
thermal velocity distribution, then that would explain the tendency for
reactions to be enhanced by increased temperature. Faster moving light
neutrons could tend to exist long enough to get into a neighboring nucleus.
It is even more interesting that an "event" would thus tend towards a
thermal runaway.  As the electrode heat increased more light neutrons would
reach adjacent nucleii due to their faster velocity, producing a thermal
runaway until metal fatique, lattice distortion, or some other disrupting
factor quells the reaction.

Just thinking out loud a bit.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 13:16:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00141;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:14:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:14:43 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130302b295e7c7fe68 [12.64.4.141]>
In-Reply-To: <36700BA6.2CB1 ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:11:00 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Einstein, Truman,  Eisenhower, Vannever Bush and so on ----
Resent-Message-ID: <"dPBBq.0.42.2d3Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25301
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>December 10, 1998]
>
>Vortex,
>
>Dr. Robert M. Wood and his adult son scientist gave an interview report
>on the acquisition of believed to be authenthic documentation material
>from the Truman era (50's to '60) concerning downed UFO's around that
>time. Important personages were 'in' on the secret.


I downloaded several of these files to look them over. My favorite by far
is the  "Special Operations Manual" - the official M.I.B. Bible! You know
it has to be genuine too, becuase it prescribes the *forms* you need to
file when shipping extraterrestrial equipment or debris to Wright Pat or
Area 51 or wherever (Form MJ-007, I believe it was). Only a genuine
government bureaucrat's manual would show such concern with having forms
correctly filled out while it be rainin' aliens in the American Southwest!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 13:17:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00659;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:15:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:15:22 -0800
Message-ID: <01ee01be2481$7938cfa0$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:08:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"kaWC22.0.6A.fd3Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25302
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace:

Since Ron Brodzinski claims, "there are no neutrons of any kind emitted in
*cold fusion* processes" and he has the expertise, experience and equipment
to convince himself of this (note that he avoided comment on the "Light
Neutron")
I suggest that a Boron compound be dissolved in the water
of various O-U/CF experiments, in case what you don't see
is what you don't get.  :-)

If the "Light Neutron"-Neutron pair is forming in the experiments they
should "unbound" with no more than a few ev kinetic energy and would be hard
pressed to "diffuse" out to where they could be detected or hazardous.

LiOH or KOH mixed with H3BO3 and melted properly should yield a
water-soluble Boron "salt":

2 KOH + 4 H3BO3 ---> K2B4O7 + 7 H2O

2 LiOH + 4 H3BO3 ---> Li2B4O7 + 7 H2O

In the D2O: 2 Li+ + B4O7--    or, 2 K+ + B4O7--

The 19% Boron 10 should have a 4 Kilobarn cross-section for a regular
neutron and more or less than this for a LN, yielding He4 + Li7 + 2.78 Mev
for a regular neutron and perhaps 0.5 Mev for a LN.

Be prepared for some labor in determining how much He4 you can distinguish
from D2.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 13:59:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18991;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:58:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:58:01 -0800
Message-ID: <020801be2487$6e750420$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:52:01 -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: <"4WrNc.0.fe4.fF4Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25303
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

Snip Theoretical Journey
>
> Just thinking out loud a bit.
>

The mainline track is routed toward an explanation as to why Deuterons are
"Stripped" of their neutrons that known to be bound to a Proton with 2.23
Mev, in collisions of 10 Kev or less.

In this case 10 Kev or less Stripping an LN-Neutron Pair formation,Might be
a Field condition set up in the Pd (or other)
Lattice where absorption/reaction can prevail over "dead physicist" neutron
leakage.

But, where are the neutron capture gammas?  :-)

Regards,  Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 14:47:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03129;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <021701be248d$46ca3c00$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:34:32 -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: <"TyQIx2.0.nm.7t4Ss" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25304
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brodzinski, Ronald L <ron.brodzinski pnl.gov>
To: 'Frederick J Sparber' <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions


>You, of course, could also simply use Li6 hydroxide to start with and avoid
the
>use of boron altogether.  Besides the Li6 will give you tritium, which is a
>whole lot easier to identify than He4.  At least that is the way we did the
>experiment.  By the way, no tritium either.
>
>Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick J Sparber [SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 1:09 PM
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov
> Subject: Re; Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
>
> Horace:
>
> Since Ron Brodzinski claims, "there are no neutrons of any kind emitted
>in
> *cold fusion* processes" and he has the expertise, experience and
>equipment
> to convince himself of this (note that he avoided comment on the "Light
> Neutron")
> I suggest that a Boron compound be dissolved in the water
> of various O-U/CF experiments, in case what you don't see
> is what you don't get.  :-)
>
> If the "Light Neutron"-Neutron pair is forming in the experiments they
> should "unbound" with no more than a few ev kinetic energy and would be
>hard
> pressed to "diffuse" out to where they could be detected or hazardous.
>
> LiOH or KOH mixed with H3BO3 and melted properly should yield a
> water-soluble Boron "salt":
>
> 2 KOH + 4 H3BO3 ---> K2B4O7 + 7 H2O
>
> 2 LiOH + 4 H3BO3 ---> Li2B4O7 + 7 H2O
>
> In the D2O: 2 Li+ + B4O7--    or, 2 K+ + B4O7--
>
> The 19% Boron 10 should have a 4 Kilobarn cross-section for a regular
> neutron and more or less than this for a LN, yielding He4 + Li7 + 2.78
>Mev
> for a regular neutron and perhaps 0.5 Mev for a LN.
>
> Be prepared for some labor in determining how much He4 you can
>distinguish
> from D2.   :-)
>
> Regards,    Frederick
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 15:31:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20011;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:29:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:29:19 -0800
Posted-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:09:42 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <3670559D.B3D0337D verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:13:33 +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: [Known Topic] Re: transcapacitor 
References: <3.0.1.32.19981210140529.006899f4 pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qgsUF2.0.bu4.Eb5Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25305
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Please move this discussion to VortexB-L.
> 
> - JR

Yes, I forgot to say this on end of my posting. Thanks. I am equally disturbed by such as subjects appears often increasingly in B.Beaty listings. Etc. (Forgive this short posting, I have no 'envie' to continue this topic on VortexB)

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 16:39:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA12034;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:37:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:37:24 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b296113ddf13 [208.228.222.196]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:44:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"0ppax.0.wx2.3b6Ss" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25306
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:52 PM 12/10/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>The mainline track is routed toward an explanation as to why Deuterons are
>"Stripped" of their neutrons that known to be bound to a Proton with 2.23
>Mev, in collisions of 10 Kev or less.
[snip]

Well, you seem to be looking in the right direction, because it seems the
answer must lie with electron interaction of some kind.

How much of the P - N bond energy is strong force and how much can be
accounted for by simple dipole attraction? (The neutron and proton are
magnetic dipoles.)  There is at possibly in the neighborhood of 0.5 MeV
available for bond breaking just from the attraction of a free electron
into the nucleus.  However, to be "free," as an initial condition, the
electron must have over 2000 eV energy (maybe more) at a distance of a
couple angstroms to have a sufficiently small wavelength to be attracted
into the nucleus frm that distance.  A thermal electron can not approach a
nucleus due to its large size.  The attraction is nullified as the electron
approaches due to the quantum waveform spreading around the nucleus as the
electron center of charge approaches the nucleus.

If an electron can be momentarily absorbed by a proton, or intercede
between the proton and neutron, being a strong magnetic dipole itself,
possibly it can momentarily break at least the dipole bond between the
neutron and proton. This, of course, assumes the proton and neutron quarks
in the deuteron nucleus preserve some kind of at least momentary
independent identity during the transaction with the electron, and are not
simply "quark soup."

I think it is interesting that, as an electron is accelerated into a
nucleus, that it's waveform, as seen from the nucleus, diminishes in size,
as does the waveform of the nucleus, as seen from the electron's point of
view.  If this process of shrinking occurred fast enough, then there would
be infinite energy available from the interaction, because the field
strength grows as 1/r^2.  As  r -> 0 the energy of the electron Ke -> inf.
Unfortunately, the deBroglie wavelength lambda is gven by lambda = h/p,
where h is Plank's constant, p the momentum, so is only inversely
proportional to velocity.


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 10 22:11:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA26057;
	Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:10:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:10:50 -0800
Message-ID: <19981211044343.15884.rocketmail send106.yahoomail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:43:43 +0800 (SGT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: December 1998 Kinetic Furnace Test
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vq4OO3.0.3N6.fTBSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25307
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since you got the same result by two methods, internal calibration
heater and mass-flow-temperature-rise, and since you were able to
understand the reason for earlier discrepancy, I think you now have a
high confidence result. Of course, if you could get it by still a
third way, so much the better :>)  

Just to belabor a point, when we make measurements of hot plasma
properties, no one method is foolproof, so we use as many methods as
we can muster. 

The temperature change with pressure drop due to Bernoulli effect is
one I haven't tried to measure so far. It ranks in magnitude with the
kinetic energy of the moving air mass.

Good work Jed and Ed.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 06:30:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA14115;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:29:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:29:14 -0800
Message-ID: <024001be2511$e6806b00$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:23:12 -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: <"EjUOg1.0.PS3.wmISs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25308
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For your contemplation,Horace.

The deuteron, proton and electron are "weighed" using a mass spectrometer
and the mass of the Neutron is determined from these values and the 2.23 Mev
required to remove it from the Deuteron:

Deuteron  2.0140 AMU
Proton    1.007825 AMU
Electron  0.000548 AMU
Neutron   1.008665 AMU

In about 12 minutes the free neutron decays to an Antineutrino,Proton, and
Electron plus 0.7825 Mev.

K Capture of an Electron occurs in 4Be7 in 53.3 days releasing 0.862 Mev
with 10% of this as 0.4476 Mev gammas
converting it to 3Li7.

IOW, the 5A - 2Z (35 - 8 = 27 quarks)in the 4Be7 grabbed a K shell electron
to make the stable 3Li7 nucleus containing
5A - 2Z (35 - 6 = 29 quarks).  :-)

Breakdown of 5A - 2Z:

     2A      "up" or (+)
     2A - Z  "down" or (-)
      A - Z   neutrinos

Net = 5A - 2Z quarks in each nucleus  (and Z electrons)

Since there was a gain of 2 quarks in going from 4Be7 to
3Li7, one was the electron, the other was an antineutrino
and since it can be assumed that the neutrinos are created in pairs
(neutrino-antineutrino) part of the 0.862 Mev was carried off by the
Neutrino.

Regardless of the esoteric physics involved, if the Deuteron is "Stimulated"
to capture an Electron in a similar manner, it MUST create a
neutrino-antineutrino pair
and thus a "Light Neutron"-Neutron Pair.

If the Neutrino stays in the "LN" until it is absorbed
by a heavier nucleus there still should be some capture gammas given off as
well as some energy going to the escaping Neutrino.

Agreed?

Regards,    Frederick







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 09:41:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA13459;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:39:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:39:44 -0800
From: Puthoff aol.com
Message-ID: <a123a4a.367155d7 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:26:47 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re: The Vacuum Energy Bank?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"cpF2r3.0.DI3.WZLSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25309
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


In a message dated 12/5/98 6:27:27 AM, you wrote:

<<1, E = 1/2 CV^2 = 1/2Q^2/C = 1/2Q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kQ^2/R>>

What's your value for R?  Radius of the universe?  Distance between
interacting particles?

Hal

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 10:57:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA07610;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:56:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:56:51 -0800
Message-ID: <024f01be2537$455ffc60$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: The Vacuum Energy Bank?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:51:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"7O7pK3.0.qs1.ohMSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25310
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Puthoff aol.com <Puthoff@aol.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The Vacuum Energy Bank?

R is the radius of a Sring-Circle or Particle.  For the Electron 2.81E-15
Meters.
For a 312 Mev "quark" in about any nucleus Radius, R = kQ^2/E.
There are three of these in a Proton.   :-)

Regards,     Frederick


Hal wrote:


>
>In a message dated 12/5/98 6:27:27 AM, you wrote:
>
><<1, E = 1/2 CV^2 = 1/2Q^2/C = 1/2Q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kQ^2/R>>
>
>What's your value for R?  Radius of the universe?  Distance between
>interacting particles?
>
>Hal
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 11:30:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA16488;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:23:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:23:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3671712C.D5B earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:23:24 -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: CF debate  12.8.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xUGwI3.0.G14.I4NSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25311
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, 08 Dec 1998 23:18:23 +0000
       From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net

I would like to summarize where I believe we stand with respect to the
discussions I have had with Dick Blue, Lee Hansen, Rich Murray, and Kirk
Shanahan.            .  

The following potential errors have been discussed at some length:
1. The applied voltage is not measured correctly. (Blue)
2. All claims for excess energy are caused by random error from which
the few positive results have been selected by the experimenter. (Blue)
3. Claimed helium results from air leakage. (Blue)
4. The location of internal recombination can shift causing temperature
errors which are misinterpreted as excess power. (Shanahan)
5. Eruptions on the surface of a gold electrode can be caused by energy
released during  H2+O2 recombination. (Murray)
6. Heat is produced by unexpected chemical reactions being catalyzed.
(Hansen)
7. AC voltages are introduced into the thermistor circuit. (Hansen)
8. Temperature errors caused by incomplete mixing within the cell.
(Hansen)

Before summarizing each of these suggestions, I would like to make a
general comment about the calorimetric method.  All heat measurements
are based on relative calorimetry, not on absolute heat measurement. In
other words, claims for excess energy are obtained from a CHANGE in heat
production.  Knowledge of the actual amount of power being produced just
before an excess is detected is not important.  For excess power to be
real, a change must be seen which exceeds the random variation in the
measured base power.  Seeing a signal rise out of the noise is easy, and
does not depend in any way on the value of the calibration constant or
on knowing the amount of heat being produced in the cell.  A calibration
is used only to determine the magnitude of excess heat, once it appears. 
Repeated calibration is also used to demonstrate that the calorimeter is
stable.  If an error is to be found using this approach, it must explain
how a CHANGE can occur in the previously stable conditions, and how this
CHANGE can be missed by repeated calibrations.  

This misunderstanding by skeptics results because people use the
calibration constant to plot the measured values with respect to an
arbitrary zero when no excess is produced.  A zero value at this point
is nice, but it is irrelevant to the experiment.  Fortunately, the CANR
phenomenon takes time to occur, during which time a zero, null condition
is defined.  The random variation of the signal is also defined during
this interval.  Then, if one is lucky, the temperature value is found to
rise above the previously steady value.  The difference between the
base-line temperature and the new temperature is multiplied by the
calibration constant to give the magnitude of excess power.  All
absolute errors in temperature, voltage, current and internal conditions
cancel provided the values of these quantities remain constant. 
Consequently, only CHANGES in these values are important.  It is
important to understand this process before attempting to find error.

Let us next discuss each of the suggested errors beginning with #1.

1. Dick Blue proposes that the DC voltage applied to the cell has rapid
variations caused by variations in cell resistance.  These rapid
variations are proposed to be overlooked by the measuring system so that
more power than expected is actually being applied to the cell.

Answer: A small random noise is, indeed, produced on the voltage
signal.  However, the value of this noise is small (about 100 mV at the
highest current in my case), and most of this variation is seen by the
measuring system. In any case, excess energy would be falsely seen only
if this noise should suddenly increase by a large amount and this
increase be missed by the measuring system.  I can not say if this
effect occurs in other studies, although it seems very unlikely. 
However, it does not occur in my work.

2. Dick Blue proposes that experimenters pick positive results out of a
large set of random values, most of which give zero excess energy.  In
other words, the effect is completely random and the upper tail of a
Gaussian distribution is being used to demonstrate the effect.

Answer: It is very easy to see when a signal rises out of a background
of random noise. In my case, this rise has been as high as 7 watts with
a noise of 0.2 W.  Other people who use smaller samples see a smaller
signal.  In most cases, their calorimeter has correspondingly less
random noise, making the effect clearly visible.

When suitable measurements are made, excess energy is produced above a
critical average composition and a critical applied current.  This
relationship is not random, although each experimental set-up will have
a different critical average composition, and each sample may have a
different critical current.  The reasons for these differences are now
understood.

This is not to say that all reported excess energy is real. An
evaluation needs to be made on a case by case basis.  However, I believe
a sufficient number of studies show a real effect that general claims
for anomalous energy production are supported.  These claims are based
on values which are far outside of random error within individual
studies.

A comparison between many individual studies, some of which were poorly
done and some of which used palladium of unknown properties, does not
seem to me to be relevant to the problem. In any case, this approach can
not be used to prove that the claims are based on a random process
because the important variables are not held constant between the
various studies.  Judgement of a random process can only be based on
data obtained within an individual study, if it is to be obtained at
all.

3. Dick Blue proposes that claims for helium production are all based on
air leaking into the apparatus, the helium contained therein (5 ppm)
being mistaken for anomalous production.

Answer:  Anomalous helium has been detected in the gas by 6 studies and
in palladium after excess heat production by several more.  Granted,
numerous replications are not absolute proof, but they help.  Two
quantitative measurements (Miles and Bush) show a consistent
relationship between excess power and helium.  Although the errors are
large, the trend in values is clear and is consistent with a failure to
see helium when no excess energy was detected in seven samples. 
However, the data do not allow an exact conclusion about the amount of
energy per helium.  This value can fall between 22 MeV and 2 MeV,
depending on various assumptions about how much helium remained in the
palladium and how much emphasis is placed on the various errors. 
Additional work is underway which will reduce this range.

4. Kirk Shanahan proposes that the location of recombination within the
calorimeter can change and that this change produces a temperature
change which is falsely interpreted as excess power.

Answer: For this process to apply, two conditions must be met.  First, a
process must exist to cause the location of recombination to change. 
This applies only to cells containing an internal recombiner. Cells
having an external recombiner have a different problem but one that is
easily diagnosed.  Second, this change must cause the measured
temperature used to calculated heat flow to change.  In a isoparibolic
calorimeter, this temperature would be the temperature of the
electrolyte used to calculate delta T. In a flow calorimeter, it would
be the temperature of water leaving the heat-exchange jacket.  Because
the temperature change in these two different designs might be caused by
different heat transport processes, they must be discussed separately.

Is there a mechanism for moving the location of recombination? The
answer is no.  It is proposed that the change in chemical property of
the cathode surface allows recombination to be initiated at the cathode
instead of at the catalyst located above the electrolyte. For this to
occur, oxygen would have to make its way from the anode to the cathode.
There it would have to dissociate on the surface and combine with
hydrogen atoms, also located on the surface.  As Mike McKubre has
pointed out, the O2+D2 reaction at the cathode is essentially
impossible.  The only reactions that can occur involve dissolved oxygen,
which produces OD- at the cathode,  and dissolved D2, which forms D+ at
the anode. These reactions can only go as fast as dissolved oxygen and
deuterium can reach the respective electrodes, a very slow process
because of the low solubility of the gases in the electrolyte. 
Experience has shown that significant recombination only occurs if an
electrode sticks out of the electrolyte, thereby being directly exposed
to the gas.

Even if the location of heat production should change, how would this
process affect the important temperature?  Kirk proposes that less heat
would leave through the leads and the top of the cell if recombination
energy moved to the electrolyte, thereby cooling the gas.  This energy
which was no longer being lost from the top would heat the electrolyte
and be interpreted as excess energy.  As Mike McKubre pointed out, only
about 1% of the energy is unaccounted for in his cell, so that the
effect would have to operate on this small residual. In my case, the
early calorimeters had a leakage of about 10%. It is hard to imagine how
the gas temperature could be changed sufficiently to produce more than a
10% CHANGE in the amount leaving through the top.  Experimental
measurement of gas temperature supports this upper estimate. In my case,
this change would introduce a 1% error in the heat measurement, which
would introduce a maximum error of 0.2W.  

As an additional problem for the proposed error, the mathematical
analysis Kirk applies to this problem is not correct, because it does
not model the actual physical process. 

5. Rich Murray proposes that eruptions seen on gold while transmutation
is claimed to occur are caused by dissolved hydrogen reacting with
oxygen bubbles to produce microexplosions.  This localized heat is
proposed to eject gold and other deposited material. 

Answer: Gold does not dissolve hydrogen.  Therefore, no source of
hydrogen is available to react with oxygen bubbles.  Rich then proposes
that the detected impurity elements can react with hydrogen.  However,
these elements are on the surface and not within the gold where a
reaction would have to be located to cause an eruption. In addition,
heat can only be produced as fast as hydrogen becomes available to the
oxygen bubble and, in addition, as fast as the reaction can be catalyzed
on a surface.  Heat generated on a surface will be quickly dissipated
and not able to melt gold.

Rich then proposes an explosion as the source of energy.  An explosion,
by its nature, produces heat very rapidly and generates a shock wave. 
Heat is not communicated to the container as any one who has set off
firecrackers can testify. The container is ruptured by the shock wave. 
For this process to apply, a void would have to exist very near the
surface of the gold. This void would have to be filled by a
stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2 and this mixture would have to be
ignited by a spark.  A mixture of H2 and O2 is stable in the absence of
an initiator and simple heating will cause the mixture to quickly react
on the metal surface without producing an explosion.  To make matters
worse for the model, the H2+O2 reaction produces a reduced gas volume. 
The reaction blows things up only because the sudden release of energy
heats the gaseous product.  The smaller the size of the container, the
faster this energy can be dissipated without producing a shock wave. The
require 1 µm size is too small to produce an explosion even if all other
conditions were met.  [See reply by Murray, next post.]

6. Lee Hansen proposes that unexpected chemical reactions are catalyzed
in the cell and the sudden production of energy is misinterpreted as
excess energy.

Answer: A limited number of chemicals exist in a cell, all of which are
stable with respect to each other. A catalyst operates by allowing
reactions to occur which would normally happen except for a
rate-limiting barrier.  The catalyst lowers this barrier but does not
supply energy. Energy must be supplied to the cell in the form of an
electric current in order to initiate any chemical reaction.  Only the
products of this current-initiated reaction can be affected by a
catalyst.  Only two chemical products have been identified, these being
the D2 and O2 gases and a small amount of D2O2.   The former are already
being catalyzed by the recombiner and the latter is present in a very
small amount.  Even if some unexpected product accumulated and was
suddenly returned to its lowest-energy state by a catalyst, the
resulting heat would only last for a limited time and die-off
exponentially as the concentration was reduced.  Excess heat production
does not behave this way.

7. Lee Hansen proposes that noise on the DC being supplied to the cell
can introduce an AC signal in the thermistor circuit. This added energy
heats the thermistor and is misinterpreted as a higher temperature
within the cell.

Answer: The amount AC power that can be transferred through an insulator
(the glass tube surrounding the thermistor) depends on the capacitance
of the transfer path, the frequency and voltage of the AC signal, and
the impedance of the circuit to which the power is being applied.  In
this case, the capacitance is about 10 µµF. The major frequency  must be
estimated but 1000 Hz is reasonable, and the voltage is no greater than
0.1 V. The thermistor circuit has a DC resistance of 6000 ohms. 
According to my calculation, less than 0.000001 volts of AC would appear
across the thermistor .  Clearly, no matter which reasonable, estimated
values are used, this effect is too small to matter.

8. Lee Hansen proposes that temperature gradients exist within the cell
so that the measured temperature does not represent the true average
temperature across the thermal barrier. 

Answer: A great deal of effort has gone into this problem since it was
first suggested by  N. Lewis.  All of the studies agree that bubble
mixing is sufficient to reduce the temperature gradients to less than
0.2°, except  at very low currents.   Only some of the low-current
studies of Pons and Fleischmann might be affected by this problem. 


WHAT ARE SOME REAL ERRORS?
Although the above proposed errors are worth considering, they are not
the real problem.  Other errors actually affect the data.  Failure of
people out side of the field to see these possibilities demonstrates the
difficulty in trying to second guess a person actually doing the
experiment.  A few errors I have experienced are described below:

1. Room temperature: Cells that sit in a room, in contrast to being in a
water bath, can suffer from changes in the surrounding temperature. 
Room temperature is easy to measure and the effect can be easily
discounted.  None of the excess energy I have reported correlates with a
room temperature change.

2. Stagnate layer: A layer of fluid is attached to the inner surface of
the cell wall, the thermal barrier.  The thickness of this layer is
sensitive to the amount of convection or stirring and it affects the
thermal conductivity of the thermal barrier, hence the calibration
constant.  While even a slight amount of convection, such as caused by
the bubbles, will reduce the thermal gradients to negligeable values,
the stagnate layer is not so easily removed.  Indeed, the calibration
constant is proportional to the amount of convection with no apparent
limit.  This is a major source of error in some measurements because the
amount of convection caused by bubble mixing changes with time.  Only a
mechanically stirred cell is not affected by this change.  All of the
cells I have used were mechanically stirred.  It should be noted, this
problem only affects single-wall isoparibolic calorimeters.

3. Variations in stirring rate:  Because of the above problem, some
cells must be stirred at a very constant rate. If the stirring rate
changes, for example, because the stirring motor gets hot, the
calibration constant will change.

Although the stirring rate used during my work at LANL was not well
controlled, the cell was calculated before, during and after excess heat
production.  Thus, the calibration constant was demonstrated to be
stable.

4. Distortion in data acquisition circuit: Some data acquisition systems
can introduce errors in other channels when the voltage on one channel
nears its upper limit.  For example, the system used at LANL would cause
errors in the temperature readings when the voltage applied to the cell
exceeded about 17 V.   Apparent excess energy was seen until this
problem was identified and corrected.  The reported excess was not
affected by this problem. 

5. Voltage change in thermistor circuit: Transistors require a stable
source of voltage to operate.  In addition, the reference network of
resistors must be stable.  Changes in room temperature can affect both
quantities.  Likewise, the reference voltage when using thermocouples
may also change if the ambient temperature changes.  At LANL we used an
ice-bath reference to avoid this problem.  Both of these problems are
difficult to notice but must be checked when excess power becomes
apparent.

6. Loss of internal recombiner: If the internal recombiner is exposed to
spray from the electrolyte, it will eventually fail.  This failure will
cause an apparent decrease in energy being produced in the cell, not an
excess.  In my case, I always use an additional external recombiner
which surrounds a thermistor.  A temperature increase at this location
shows that the internal recombiner has failed. 

This is a sample of potential errors.  Each person doing this kind of
work has his own list.  The point is that each of us looks for errors,
takes nothing for granted, and tries to produce the best data possible. 
In addition, I have found it very helpful, when evaluating other
people’s work, to have done some work in the field myself. 

I suggest anyone who wants to respond to these comments take some time
to study and think about the subject.  This method of instant response
produces too many poorly thought out comments which are a waste of time.
I am glad to defend my ideas and data but I expect other people to do
their homework as well.  In any case, wait until after Jan 9, 1999 for
my reply.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 11:35:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19729;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:32:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:32:03 -0800
Message-ID: <3671735F.34A6 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:32:47 -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: Murray: Storms: Mizuno Au microvolcano theory  12.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"21vAB1.0.6q4.pCNSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25312
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 11, 1998 [Comments by Rich Murray on the H2 & O2 reaction scenario
for producing Mizuno-Ohmori microvolcanos on Au]. 

My initial proposal was that H2 was absorbed into metal impurity
microspots, electrochemically deposited on the Au from the anode and
other sources.  I have never proposed an explosion or invoked shock
waves.  I have imagined a fast burning process, since it is trivial to
calculate that the density of H at 50% loading, is enough to raise a
surface region of the metal to melting, if combustion occurs with an
attached O2 microbubble.  Such melting will cause the H2 loaded metal
surface to expand into a foam, exposing more H2 for reaction with the O2
bubble, until the O2 bubble is largely consumed, leaving the metal foam
to cool, forming the microvolcano structures.  Only 2 joules total in a
month are needed to form 10 mg of mostly Au deposits from a millon such
events, one event every 2-3 sec,  ten-fold more than found by Mizuno &
Ohmori.

I suppose it is plausible that deposited metal spots will diffuse
significantly into the Au surface, in a month, so that H absorbed within
the metals will be in intimate contact with the Au matrix.  So the H2 &
O2 reaction in the metal spots will indeed melt an even greater amount
of the Au matrix.

Mizuno, Ohmori, and Enyo have, in their reports published in Fusion
Technology, failed to provide mass spectrometric data of a quality that
justifies their claim that nuclear reactions are producing
transmutations.  Have they any chemical analyses or optical spectroscopy
to substantial their remarkable, radical claims?  Surely, the most
plausible hypothesis to explain the myriad microvolcano structures is
heat from a chemical reaction.  What else is available, but H2 & O2?
Pursuit of this simple scenario is most likely to result in success.

Following is my report of 6.24.98.]

June 24, 1998 Little Lily Theory [this version a little improved]

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.  In another post I have discussed the
sensible interpretation that Pt, Pd, Ni, Os, and Ti, and other elements,
are impurities in the system, electrochemically concentrated at the
cathode at rough microspots, where the current density is much higher.

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 positively charged O2 bubbles that are
also attracted and conveyed by the turbulent bubbling from the anode 1
cm away 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 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, for each mole of O2.

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 perhaps a milligram of 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

[Recall that the O2 microbubble only contains 4.065X10E-6 mol, so that
the melted Au at 50% loading contains far more than enough H2 to react
with the O2.]

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 1 event every 2-3 seconds,  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 then have an average energy of 2X10E-6 J.

It should be possible to detect IR, visible, and UV radiation, and
acoustic signals, about 1 event per 2 to 3 seconds.  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.

If the word, "POOF!" is microplated onto the Au as a layer of Pt 10 to
100 microns thick, then the resulting lily volcanos should spell,
"POOF!" 

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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 11:36:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21108;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:35:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:35:21 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b297191221d8 [12.21.208.15]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:42:58 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"QVJOq3.0.k95.uFNSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25313
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:23 AM 12/11/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>For your contemplation,Horace.
[snip]
>Regardless of the esoteric physics involved, if the Deuteron is "Stimulated"
>to capture an Electron in a similar manner, it MUST create a
>neutrino-antineutrino pair
>and thus a "Light Neutron"-Neutron Pair.
>
>If the Neutrino stays in the "LN" until it is absorbed
>by a heavier nucleus there still should be some capture gammas given off as
>well as some energy going to the escaping Neutrino.
>
>Agreed?

I have the feeling that there is something wrong with this picture.  If
there were two neutrons, not just one, created by stripping reactions, then
wouldn't this have shown up in prior experiments?

Also, the creation (or not) of neutrinos, or more specifically the exact
timing thereof, seems like a fairly academic question at this level of
uncertaintay, and with respect to attempting to engineer an energy
producing device.  What seems significant to me at this point is the
recurring theme from many quarters of some kind of electron-proton bond,
permitting a kind of extended distance proton tunneling, as an explanation
for CF results.  It seems to me the "light neutron", which, if it keeps
your suggested neutrinos around temporarily, or does not in fact create
them initially, thus would actually be a heavy neutron, should have a very
short half-life.  At least a low excitation state particle would have a
fast moving clock, relativistially speaking.  A very short half-life
"special neutron" or "temporary neutron" also lends explanation to a number
of CF effects.  It seems like the important thing is to determine
conditions for creating such a thing so as to be able to engineer devices -
and also to do research on the nature of the beast by having large
quantities around to investigate.

It seems possible to get somewhere in this matter by shooting deuterons of
various known energies at targets, and examining emergent neutron counts
and the distribution of transmuted elements in the target.  The existence
of a special light neutron with differing properties should create a
bimodal distribution of transmuted products in the target.  The distibution
of hydrogen in the target might help differentiate the effects of cross
section vs half life of the special neutron, a temporarily bound
electron-proton particle, if it exists.  Half live might also be determined
by using layered targets and varying the gaps between them.

Since shooting deutrons at targets has been done a huge amount over many
years, going back to cyclotron days, there should be data already available
in some form or another about this issue.

Another item of interest might be the stripping rate achieved in
deuteron-deuteron or deuteron-proton collisions vs that achieved with solid
targets containing electrons.  A lesser stripping rate in the absence of
electrons would be a clear indication of the importance of electrons to the
stripping reaction.

Also of interest might be the effectiveness of electron beams in producing
neutrons in a LiD target, or other high deuterium density target which
includes material which will release energy and or neutrons upon absorbtion
of neutrons, eg some isotopes of Be.  It could be that a high powered
electron pulse could be more effective than a laser in producing energy
from a small target, or that the effects of a laser upon target electrons
is critical to the production of neutrons.

Another thought is the notion of using a glass tube filled with deuterium
as the secondary of a very high voltage transformer.  The primary would
consist of n turns of wire driven at n*(20 kV).  The primary might be 3
turns at 60 kV. The idea is to attempt to create a plasma with a highly
bimodal (deuteron vs electron)temperature distribution.  As with an
ordinary fusion rector the neutrons would be the source of the energy.
Don't know how well this might work.

Just some food for thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 12:11:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01333;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:09:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:09:44 -0800
Message-ID: <36717C2E.59A3 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:10:22 -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  12.10.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"I4xF51.0.gK.8mNSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25314
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Murray: Shanahan: Chubb: Storms: band state theory,
1993 Storms artifacts 12.9.98
       Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:19:12 +0000
       From: Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To: rmforall earthlink.net

[Comments by Rich Murray: These are very cogent answers to the
challenges raised by Dick Blue and Rich Murray about possible artifacts
in the 20% excess heat result, in a single 1000 hour run, reported in
Fusion Technology, March, 1993, 23, p. 230-245, received July 27, 1992.

Ed Storms was trying to replicate results by A. Takahashi, T. Iida, T.
Takeuchi, A. Mega in (I believe) 1992 [What is the reference?], which
claimed >100 W/cm3, average of 70% excess power.  Storms used two Pd
samples from the same source.  Storms found excess heat at the highest
current used, 2.77 A, 38.4 W input power, for the 3.9186 gm Pd cathode,
area 6.643 cm2, volume 0.3358 cm3, 70 ml D2O with 0.3 M LiOD electrolyte
in the 120 ml cell, with 10 liter/min water cooling rate in the
enveloping water jacket.  Critics are naturally going to notice that
this little cell seems to be run at an an extreme level of input power. 
Were higher input currents and powers attempted?  No excess heat with
the second sample -- doesn't that weaken the case for the claim that
artifacts caused the excess heat in the first sample?  Storms' excess
heat was ~20% of the excess claimed by Takahashi.  Whatever came of the
Takahashi research?  As Scott Little has mentioned recently, even if
critics can not locate artifacts in published reports, no progress can
ensue without replication by the same lab and then by independent labs,
or experiments that collect far more data about specific reaction
events, sites, products, and radiations, for rare, difficult to achieve
anomalous events.]
 
Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms

Rich Murray wrote:
>[Comments on 1993 Storms report by Rich Murray]  Fig. 6 has two data
>points at 10 degrees C jacket temperature, giving  calibration constants
>3.84 for normal electrolysis and 4.01  W/deltaT for heater, so the
>difference is .17/3.84 = 4.4%.  There are no data from 10 to 17.5
>degrees C.  The differences at 20 degrees C range from about 3.95 to
>4.3, a difference of .35/3.95 = 8.9%.

The difference between the electrolyte calibration and the calibration
based on Joule heating results mainly from the different voltage drop in
the leads.  This difference has been reduced in subsequent designs.  A
problem results only if this error should change, an unlikely event
because it depends on the wire size.

>The small cell is well surrounded by a water jacket that has a volume
>many times the volume of the cell, according to Fig. 1, although
>dimensions are not given.  The water flow rate is not given.

As fast as the pump can deliver which is about 10 liter/min. 

>Water flows in at the bottom left, and exits near the top right.  I wonder
>whether the water flow forms a stream that spirals around the cell
>without much turbulence and mixing.  This stream flow might change very
>nonlinearly as the temperature of the cell and the distribution of
>temperature on the surface of the cell changes.

Use of a dye showed that the water swirls around the cell very rapidly.
The high flow rate completely overwhelms any changes as you suggest. The
delta T across the jacket is only a few tenths of a degree at the
highest power. Any change would have to operate in this small
temperature range. 

>If the stream prodominantly happened to pick up most of the heat from the
>top of the cell, by the recombiner, at high cell input power and
>temperature, then an excess heat artifact would result.

Heat pick up is limited by how much can pass through the thermal
barrier.  This amount is determined by the temperature difference across
the barrier.  The high flow rate insures that the jacket temperature is
essentially uniform.  Therefore, "most of heat can be picked up from the
top" only if the internal temperature was much hotter at the top
compared to the uniform temperature of the electrolyte. Although the gas
temperature was not measured in this cell, such measurements in similar
cells show no significant difference. 

>Do the four test calibration
>procedures include the difference that localized high temperatures at
>the recombiner would make?

Yes.

>Fig.7, Apparent excess power determined by subjecting a platinum cathode
>to bivalued charging at 0.13 and 2.8 A:  This is 38.4 W input power,
>according to Fig. 14, at 2.8 A.  Storms claims 35 W input power on p.
>234. Over a hundred data points are shown for 1000 minutes of run time. 
>Typically, in his experimental runs, Storms applies "bivalue" charging
>by alternating 30 min at 0.13 A with 30 or 60 min at 2.8 A.  Typical is
>the data at about 800 to 900 minutes: jumping at the 2.8 A current from
>-1 to +1.4 W, or - 2.6% to + 3.6%. These variations seem to happen
>quickly throughout the 1000 min run.  On p. 234, he comments:
>"This scatter is caused by local variations in the temperature within
>the cell as well as by rapid changes in cell voltage caused by bubble
>action."

In this case, bubble action is different from the suggestion made by
Blue. The data acquisition system sees a voltage change but the changed
power is not reflected in the temperature because the thermal inertia of
the cell is too slow to allow the corresponding temperature change to
occur. As a result, large, rapid variations are seen in the apparent
applied power.  If this power change lasted for the 15 min needed for
the cell to achieve thermal equilibrium, the apparent excess power would
return to zero as the temperature values adjusted. Therefore, these
variations have no relevance to evaluating processes which last for
hours.

>A prudent evaluation would have to consider that a multitude of subtle
>nonlinear effects are available to create apparent heat excursions as
>large as 20% at the highest power level used, 38.4 W in the small cell. 
>What is the volume of electrolyte, and the volume of the cell?


And these nonlinear effects would have come on slowly, last for hours,
and be invisible to repeated calibration using Joule heating. 
The electrolyte volume is about 70 ml and the total volume is about 120
ml.

>The chemistry of the cell and recombiner is constantly changing: p. 232:
>"Because of chemical interactions of lithium with oxygen in the
>electrolyte and with carbon in the recombiner, the concentration of
>lithium in the cell solution slowly decreases as Li2CO3 is formed on the
>recombiner.  In addition, the solution gradually becomes saturated with
>CO2."   This implies that the functioning of the recombiner is
>constantly changing, and, indeed, recombiner failure, as Dick Blue noted
>weeks ago, occurred after apparent excess heat episodes.
>How much heat is generated by the oxidation of the recombiner?  

Interaction between the electrolyte and the recombiner is too slow to
measure. It takes weeks for the recombiner to fail and at the end of
that time most of the 1.1g of carbon was still present, although
partially covered by a thin later of Li2CO3. 

>How much and how quickly do changes in electrolyte conductivity occur?

The resistivity changes by about 20% over the course of an experiment
lasting weeks. No sudden changes were observed.  

>Are any gels, foams, and gunks forming in the cell, changing electrical
>and thermal characteristics?]

No, the electrolyte remains clear and free of gel.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 12:21:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05287;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:18:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:18:40 -0800
Message-ID: <36717E4A.2EA8 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:19:22 -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: 1993 Storms report  12.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Icso6.0.RI1.UuNSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25315
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Blue: Murray: Shanahan: Chubb: Storms: band state theory,
1993 Storms artifacts 12.9.98
  Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:55:40 -0500 (EST)
  From: "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> [Comments on 1993 Storms report by Rich Murray]  Fig. 6 has two data
> points at 10 degrees C jacket temperature, giving  calibration constants
> 3.84 for normal electrolysis and 4.01  W/deltaT for heater, so the
> difference is .17/3.84 = 4.4%.  There are no data from 10 to 17.5
> degrees C.  The differences at 20 degrees C range from about 3.95 to
> 4.3, a difference of .35/3.95 = 8.9%.

I have not quoted the rest of Rich's remarks which, it seems to me,
make it quite clear that the Storms experiments are simply not so
straight forward as one may be tempted to assume.  While many potential
error sources may be addressed adequately, my sense is that others
have not been recognized and dealt with appropriately.  It is even more
instructive, perhaps, to consider the application of what Storms has
revealed to other CANR measurements of excess heat.  It seems that
lessons learned by Storms may not have been learned early enough in
the cold fusion saga to have saved many of the claimed positive
results.

One thing that is noteworthy about the Storms data on temperature
gradients within the electrolyte is that they exist even when the cell
is being vigorously stirred by a magnetic stirrer -- something that is
entirely missing from many other experiments.  Then there is the
question Rich raises concerning flow and mixing within the water
jacket.  It is interesting to note that the two probes sensing jacket
temperature are both located where the flow is most confined.  They tell
us nothing about the temperature in the jacket at points well away from
the path of least resistance between inlet and outlet.  Are we just to
assume that mixing within the jacket is adequate?  I am reminded of the
Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean.  Remarkably little mixing occurs
between that flow and the rest of the ocean.

Another topic that concerns me about this type of calorimeter is the
response of the device to transients.  Ed Storms notes that it takes
about 12 min for the cell to "equilibrate" sufficiently for the
temperature to come within 99% of its final value.  What do you think
is happening in the mean time?  Clearly the calorimeter is not properly
registering the power level during any transient which may occur on a
time scale that is short relative to 12 min.  I suppose there is an
unstated assumption that resulting errors are somehow being compensated,
but do we know that to be the case?  Is it, perhaps, significant that
the "effect" may be enhanced by the deliberate introduction of
transients in the input power level?

Is this yet another example of the instrument being tortured until it
confesses to what its operator wants to hear?

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 12:23:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06601;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:21:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:21:15 -0800
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:13:09 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Credit Card (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981211151302.16628B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Knt2e2.0.3d1.xwNSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25316
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:11:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Credit Card


	Dear Folks,

	I have a client customer who wishes to pay by Master Card.  I do 
not have a Merchant Account.   Is there or are there entities who act as 
intermediaries for such transactions?

			Thanks,

					John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 13:56:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA07303;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:51:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:51:49 -0800
Message-ID: <027a01be254f$b4294440$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:45:39 -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: <"KVNvF2.0.1o1.qFPSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25317
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>
Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Horace wrote:


>At 7:23 AM 12/11/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>>Regardless of the esoteric physics involved, if the Deuteron is
"Stimulated"
>>to capture an Electron in a similar manner, it MUST create a
>>neutrino-antineutrino pair
>>and thus a "Light Neutron"-Neutron Pair.
>>
>>If the Neutrino stays in the "LN" until it is absorbed
>>by a heavier nucleus there still should be some capture gammas given off
as
>>well as some energy going to the escaping Neutrino.
>>
>
>I have the feeling that there is something wrong with this picture.  If
>there were two neutrons, not just one, created by stripping reactions, then
>wouldn't this have shown up in prior experiments?

Yes, that is the point, the deuteron neutron stripping reactions occur down
to energies as low as 500 ev in the Tokamaks.But, how do you
know whether or not they are Regulars or Lights?
>
>What seems significant to me at this point is the
>recurring theme from many quarters of some kind of electron-proton bond,
>permitting a kind of extended distance proton tunneling, as an explanation
>for CF results.

To each his own,I'm intersted in the stripping
at a fraction of a kev to 10 kev where 2.23 Mev
is the neutron-proton binding energy in the deuteron.  The known
Proton-Electron-Proton (PeP)---> Deuteron + Neutrino obviously involves the
creation of a Neutrino-Antineutrino
Pair. Academic doesn't really impress me much.  :-)

  It seems to me the "light neutron", which, if it keeps
>your suggested neutrinos around temporarily, or does not in fact create
>them initially, thus would actually be a heavy neutron, should have a very
>short half-life.

Not so, You can't get 2*1.008665 AMU out of the 2.0140 AMU
deuteron (unless you're tapping ZPE).

>It seems like the important thing is to determine
>conditions for creating such a thing so as to be able to engineer devices -
>and also to do research on the nature of the beast by having large
>quantities around to investigate.

Now you're talking! It should be doable,if you can separate
the Regular Neutron decay Protons from the Protons that may or may not come
from Deuteron Stripping.
>
>It seems possible to get somewhere in this matter by shooting deuterons of
>various known energies at targets, and examining emergent neutron counts
>and the distribution of transmuted elements in the target.

That makes sense.

>
>Since shooting deutrons at targets has been done a huge amount over many
>years, going back to cyclotron days, there should be data already available
>in some form or another about this issue.

It goes back to Cockcroft and Walton shooting 0.5 to 0.7 Mev "protons" at
various targets from 1927 on. They didn't know that they were also shooting
Deuterons,but these
were not "discovered" until 1931. The neutron was discovered later.   :-)

>
>Just some food for thought.

Good Menu.

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 14:28:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17727;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:24:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:24:59 -0800
Message-ID: <028601be2554$58c8fc80$12441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: pp (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/pp.jpg)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:15:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE2519.0FB23560"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"tS61I3.0.rK4.vkPSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25318
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_0022_01BE2519.0FB23560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The Proton-Electron-Proton (PEP) Reaction etc.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/pp.jpg

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE2519.0FB23560
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="pp.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="pp.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/pp.jpg
Modified=80FF34815325BE016B

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE2519.0FB23560--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 11 16:02:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25924;
	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b2975987111e [208.228.222.192]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:59:59 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"hif103.0.-K6.n5RSs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25319
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:45 PM 12/11/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>  It seems to me the "light neutron", which, if it keeps
>>your suggested neutrinos around temporarily, or does not in fact create
>>them initially, thus would actually be a heavy neutron, should have a very
>>short half-life.
>
>Not so, You can't get 2*1.008665 AMU out of the 2.0140 AMU
>deuteron (unless you're tapping ZPE).


That's a good reason for a very short half-life.  The more you borrow the
faster it must be paid back.  The problem is then that there is no
convenient way to pay back.  Possibly the reaction looks more like:

D + e -> nn*

followed by one of:

nn* -> D + e   (very short half-life)

nn* + D -> T + n + e

nn* + D -> He + e

or the nn* particle may imbed in and transmute a heavy nucleus in the walls
of the device.

The problem with the above scenarios, though they may apply to CF
reactions, is that striping reactions are known to exist and, by
defiinition, they do not produce T or He.  This implies that the nn* would
have to capable of fully masquerading as a neutron, which sounds feasible
in some experiments?  The double neutron would, however, be detectable by
one of: (1) presence of hydrogen in the target metal corresponding to the
number of double neutrons reacting (2) an unusual abundance of products
with atomic mass 2 greater than the target heavy nucleus (3) the presence
of T and He in the original D gas that corresponds to the nn* + D cross
section (which may be low?) or (4) a lack of presence of H in the gas
stripped.

I must admit though, if any of the discussed alternatives is happening, it
is an unusually robust means of tapping ZPE, even if so briefly.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 02:07:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA14849;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 02:06:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 02:06:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b297e084bfc4 [208.228.222.25]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:14:08 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"v7SSe3.0.xd3.b0aSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25320
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

First, let me correct an error.  I earlier wrote a candidate reaction:

   nn* + D -> T + n + e

which should have read:

   nn* + D -> T + n -> T + p + e


At 2:45 PM 12/11/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>...deuteron neutron stripping reactions occur down
>to energies as low as 500 ev in the Tokamaks.But, how do you
>know whether or not they are Regulars or Lights?


If you hit a solid target with deuterons the hypothesis is they take up an
electron to create nn* which quickly might become n + n* by your scenario.
It seems logical the half life of nn* or n* would be smaller than that of
an ordinary neutron.  If so, we have the possible cases (ignoring
neutrinos):

(1)   nn* -> D + e   (very short half-life)

(2)   nn* + D -> T + p + e  (all short range, typical high energy fusion gamma,
                               very low energy beta)

(2a)  nn* + D -> T + n -> T + p + e (no high energy fusion gamma,
                                      high energy, 0.7 MeV, beta)


(3)   nn* + D -> He + e  (short range, no typical high energy gamma)

(4)   n* -> p + e  (at a short range, low energy beta)

(5)   n -> p + e   (at a long range, high energy beta)

(6)   D -> D  (shallow, non-event)

(7)   D + n -> T  (shallow, emits typical high energy fusion gamma)

(8)   D + D -> He  (shallow, low probability, high energy fusion gamma)

(9)   D -> p + n  ("standard" stripping, shallow event for p,
                   but results in a subsequent event 5)

(10)  D + n* -> T   (should be shallow, no typical fusion gamma)

(11)  others involving metals or heavy element nucleii


A useful configuration for sorting all this out seems to be a thin metal
target followed by a large gap, followed by a thicker target.

It strikes me that a very significant datum is the presence or lack of high
energy gamma counts corresponding to the transmuted products generated, as
this datum has nothing to do with half lives or cross sections.  A lack of
high energy gammas corresponding to the number of transmuted atoms is a
signature for the existence of n* or nn*.  Also important is the amount and
location of neutron decay betas.  The count of neutrons making it through
the thin target vs the amount of transmutation in the thin target might be
an indicator of the existence of n* or nn*.  The presence of bimodal
distributions of protium and transmutation products seems very secondary,
except for accounting for the total number of neutrons not involved in
transmutations (i.e. determining if the number of neutrons generated
greater than 1 per stripping.)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 02:44:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA19804;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 02:44:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 02:44:01 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530501b297f74c27d2 [208.228.222.41]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:51:40 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Fusor
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Resent-Message-ID: <"VnIFP.0.Mr4.nZaSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25321
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

One (possibly unintended?) advantage to the Fusor design is that it
repetitively sends deuterons and electrons in opposing directions across
the grid.  A good part of the Fusor output may be due to "stripping"
reactions involving electrons bound to deuterons in the process by the
creation of nn* particles from the deuterons.

If stripping is the primary source of energy from the Fusor, then the
hollow grid lined chamber is really not necessaary to the Fusor's
operation, as the neutrons produced provide the energy when reacting with
the walls or deuterons in the plasma.  A better design migh be simply a
large flat grid bordered by a gas space, a glass envelope, and outer
electrodes:


      =========================
   GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

              P
      #########################
              P

   GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
      =========================


   === - metal electrode plates
   GGG - glass envelope
   ### - grid
   P   - plasma area

A frequency high enough to prevent grid transversing electrons from
reaching the walls would be used, and a voltage high enough to get the
electrons to over 10 keV when crossing the grid.  The outer electrodes
could be inside the glass envelope, or form part of the gas containing
envelope.  Pressure would have to be low enough that the electrons obtain a
sufficient velocity.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 03:17:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA23015;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 03:16:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 03:16:48 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981212112349.0117ecc0 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, 12 Dec 1998 06:23:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Fusor
Resent-Message-ID: <"_oCNo1.0.Td5.W2bSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25322
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi;


There are people on the Tesla list investigating Farnsworth Fusor design.
Aren't neutrons or deuterons dangerous to one's health? This is
disappointing because we had more plasma sculptures planned. Are there any
references on this safety issue?

Regards;
Dennis


At 01:51 AM 12/12/98 -0900, you wrote:
>One (possibly unintended?) advantage to the Fusor design 

(snip)


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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 05:05:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA05531;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 05:05:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 05:05:01 -0800
Message-ID: <002d01be25cf$4980fa40$4c441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 05:58:51 -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: <"_2iDX.0.LM1.zdcSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25323
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>
Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Horace Heffner wrote:

Snip some good stuff.

The distinct possibility of  the VACUUM ZPE  restoring the "Light Neutron"
(1.00544 AMU) to the 1.008665 AMU  mass/energy, just might exist. This could
be a better approach to proving the ZPE extraction mechanism.

For instance the non-radiative "Orbits" and  the quantum-mechanical barrier
that separates the
Hydrogenic electron from the nucleus, and the property that allows K-capture
etc., are more "Fat for the Fire".

One might speculate that All Energy Manifestations are a cycle of energy
into Particles then out
to a "Vacuum Energy Bank" and back with no net loss or gain of energy in the
Universe.

IOW, the energy that came out of the formation of the Deuteron can be taken
back to form a neutron pair.

So, O-U effects are just manifestations of this quantum-mechanically
Dictated Energy Cycle.

I think Hal Puthoff has maintained this all along, only we are a bit slow
about catching on.   :-)

Regards,     Frederick

>

>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 07:20:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31545;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 07:19:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 07:19:16 -0800
Message-ID: <36728FEC.4CF8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 07:46:52 -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: letting off steram: Re: Credit Card (fwd)
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981211151302.16628B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XzxpM2.0.li7.pbeSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25324
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 12, 1998

John Schnurer wrote:

> Subject: Credit Card 
> I have a client customer who wishes to pay by Master Card.  I do
> not have a Merchant Account.   Is there or are tere entities who act > as intermediaries for such transactions?

Kinda tricky using intermediaries, if there are any. The
'intermediaries' are exposed to tracking (of all types) themselves. 

Better to set up a dba merchant account and credit card service. Easy. 
Probably better since you seem to be offering products from time to
time. Of course this sets you up for 'tracking' as well.
 
Get your feet wet in  the opportunities and travails of business.
Experience the bumps of working your butt off, pay unreasonable taxes,
keep endless paperwork, and have not much to show for the activity much
less prospects for retirement.
 
Expose yourself to the position learning how taxes are generated to the
extent of taking, overall, over 50% of incomes of the working stiff ---
which does encourage creative accounting and degenerates morals.
Somebody calculated that in history, a govermental system starts to fall
apart when taxation exceeds 32%.

I am not begrudging your situation. You got it 'made in the shade' as
they put it for enviable situations seen by those in poverty. You seem
to be comfortably escounced in a 'edu'. Quit it and face the bracing air
of going into business for yourself, to have to live off of it. 
The business failure rate is over 80% by the way, and most do not last
over 5 years, statistically. I wonder what you would advocate, by
experience, to lower the failure rate?

-ak-

ps: Just thought off this after the steam was let off.  I think the
credit card user can purchase a postal money order then send that to
you.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 09:43:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02619;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:42:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:42:21 -0800
Message-ID: <003f01be25f6$073be1a0$4c441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:36:11 -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: <"QNNvU.0.re.zhgSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25325
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If the potential at the Bohr Radius, V = kq/R = 27.2 ev
= n*Ee*alpha^n' (27.2/alpha^2 = .510E6 the energy of the electron).

Then, the potential of a quark at a quantized radius:

V = kq/4.6E-18 = 312 Mev (the energy in about any quark in a nucleus) then
n*alpha^(+/-)n' is a key to the quantization of particle "orbits", or
energy.

Back Tracking; A 1.0 Gev photon can create a particle pair of 0.5 Gev each
and two such pairs can combine to form
a Proton containing three 312 Mev quarks and the 0.51 Mev
external electron. Thus there is 2,000 Mev tied up as binding and mass
energy and 1,064 Mev in "lost" energy in a 936 Mev Proton/Hydrogen Atom.

Then in a deuteron made from a PEP reaction, more "lost"
energy is floating around the Universe, as ZPE?

Interestingly in an Electromagnetic Interaction such as
an Electron-Proton Collision, energy can be "extracted":

dE = hbar/dt.

Is this "extracted" energy coming back from the ZPE "Bank"
filled with the energy "lost" in the formation of matter?

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 10:21:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14137;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:20:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:20:32 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2985eb17b81 [208.228.222.240]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:28:12 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Yr7Q2.0.pS3.lFhSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25326
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:58 AM 12/12/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>The distinct possibility of  the VACUUM ZPE  restoring the "Light Neutron"
>(1.00544 AMU) to the 1.008665 AMU  mass/energy, just might exist. This could
>be a better approach to proving the ZPE extraction mechanism.


Yes, could be.  This scenario, if it exists, might be uncovered in the
proposed experiment, depending on branching ratios, because the neutron
count coming off the first target would be high.  A conventional nn
particle is very unstable, so you would see the neutrons coming off the
target as separate neutrons, and they would have a 12 minute half life,
standard branching ratios, reaction products, and cross sections with the
second target material.  The main problem then is getting a good measure of
the mass of protium in the primary target so it can be compared against the
neutron count, and means are available for this.

If just the "standard" stripping reaction is occuring:

   D -> p + n

then the hydrogen in the thin target should match the neutron count. The
number of product neutrons absorbed in the target should be nominal, so
there should not be much in the way of T and He in the primary target, and
there should be no characteristic standard fusion gammas corresponding to
the amount of such products if they come from nn* interactions due to a
large nn* cross section.  Further, if the nn* (or n*) is absorbing gammas
in the process, the fusion gamma spectum from the primary target should be
spread, not discrete.

If the reactions:

  D + e -> nn*

  nn* + ZPE -> n + n

occur consistently 100 percent of the time for each stripping reaction,
then there is no source of protium in the primary target.  The ratio of
protium in the target to emerging neutrons would be an indication of the
percentage of the proposed reactions vs "standard" striping reactions
occuring.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 10:50:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22731;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:48:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:48:59 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b2986c56b027 [208.228.222.123]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:56:39 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ye2Jx1.0.5Z5.QghSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25327
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:36 AM 12/12/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>
>Back Tracking; A 1.0 Gev photon can create a particle pair of 0.5 Gev each
>and two such pairs can combine to form
>a Proton containing three 312 Mev quarks and the 0.51 Mev
>external electron. Thus there is 2,000 Mev tied up as binding and mass
>energy and 1,064 Mev in "lost" energy in a 936 Mev Proton/Hydrogen Atom.

This doesn't sound right.  Could you be more specific about the particles
created?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 11:47:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03706;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 11:46:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 11:46:29 -0800
Message-ID: <000201be2607$63a16260$33441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 12:32:28 -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: <"2Ezco.0.nv.LWiSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25328
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, December 12, 1998 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

Horace wrote:


>At 10:36 AM 12/12/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>Back Tracking; A 1.0 Gev photon can create a particle pair of 0.5 Gev each
>>and two such pairs can combine to form
>>a Proton containing three 312 Mev quarks and the 0.51 Mev
>>external electron. Thus there is 2,000 Mev tied up as binding and mass
>>energy and 1,064 Mev in "lost" energy in a 936 Mev Proton/Hydrogen Atom.
>
>This doesn't sound right.  Could you be more specific about the particles
>created?

Easy, the 548.8 Mev Kaons (From 1.1 Gev Photon pair production) would fill
the bill. Then these would form the proton (or anti-proton)"Triad" and the
"odd man out" would decay to an external e- or in the case of anti-proton an
e+ external positron. They do this in high energy particle colliders. So you
have 2.2 mev invested and a binding and radiation loss of 2,200 - 936 mev =
1,264 Mev.

>From this, you have more non-matter energy than matter energy floating
around the Universe. Why not call it ZPE, and put it to use?   :-)

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 12 12:16:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13902;
	Sat, 12 Dec 1998 12:15:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 12:15:12 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be260b$66983760$33441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:09:19 -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: <"hyzJL.0.7P3.FxiSs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25329
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I Forgot to add this item.

The 558.8 Mev Kaon = 8*Ee/alpha

Ee is the .510 Mev electron rest energy, alpha = 0.00729729, the "fine
structure constant".

Practically all known particles can be matched with n*Ee*alpha^(+/-)n'.

If you include the binding energy in with the mass of atoms,the quantization
gets interesting.

FJS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 05:51:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA01058;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 05:50:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 05:50:02 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3673B8BA.AC7 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:53:14 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: test only
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LgDc63.0.RG.AOySs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25330
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 13, 1998

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 10:45:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02745;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:44:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:44:27 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b299b5396d99 [208.228.222.19]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 09:52:05 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"_8D331.0.pg.Bi0Ts" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25331
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:32 PM 12/12/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>>>Back Tracking; A 1.0 Gev photon can create a particle pair of 0.5 Gev each
>>>and two such pairs can combine to form
>>>a Proton containing three 312 Mev quarks and the 0.51 Mev
>>>external electron. Thus there is 2,000 Mev tied up as binding and mass
>>>energy and 1,064 Mev in "lost" energy in a 936 Mev Proton/Hydrogen Atom.
[snip]
>Easy, the 548.8 Mev Kaons (From 1.1 Gev Photon pair production) would fill
>the bill. Then these would form the proton (or anti-proton)"Triad" and the
>"odd man out" would decay to an external e- or in the case of anti-proton an
>e+ external positron. They do this in high energy particle colliders. So you
>have 2.2 mev invested and a binding and radiation loss of 2,200 - 936 mev =
>1,264 Mev.
>
>From this, you have more non-matter energy than matter energy floating
>around the Universe. Why not call it ZPE, and put it to use?   :-)

This is all over my head, but I am sure something is very "strange" about
this.  8^)

I don't have much in the way of reference material on this subject, but it
seems likely you are missing something somewhere that carries off the left
over energy, be it a photon or other particle.  One thing strange is that
much of the mass of a Kaon consists of the strange quark (100 to 300 MeV),
so the proton triad is going to be difficult to form from a Kaon.  A Kaon
isn't going to decay into a proton plus other stuff.  BTW, I don't have
info on a 548.8 MeV Kaon.  I have 493.71, 497.7, 892, 1270, 1499, etc.

It has always struck me that the idea that energy and mass are equivalent
is nonsense.  *Both* energy and mass are conserved.  They are inseperable
twins.  One can not be formed without the other.  They maintain the
constant ratio E/m = c^2.  (This is why I have maintained that any free
energy device must increase in mass as it operates.  If you find a way to
increase mass you have found a way to generate energy.)  This is primarily
due to the fact the observed mass increases, due to relativisitic effects,
when kinetic energy increases.  It is also due to the fact that photons
also have a mass/energy ratio equal to c^2.  This strikes me as a
fundamental link between energy and gravity, because where there is energy
there is mass.

I mention this especially in light of the discussion of stripping.  When
the 0.7 MeV beta is released from a decaying neutron, it actually carries
away more than 0.7 MeV form the nucleus.  This is because it must overcome
the coulomb barrier on the way out fo the nucleus.  It had to have an extra
appx. 0.5 MeV at the nucleus to overcome that barrier, and that amounts to
the extra corresponding mass.  Much in the way of what we generically refer
to as "bond energy" it seems to me is really in the form of relativistic
mass that the well bonded particle can carry due to its excited state.

Looking again at the neutron, if its bond energy is 2.2 MeV, and the beta
carries away 1.7 MeV, then there is only about 1 MeV left to break the
bond.  An incoming energetic electron gains about 0.5 MeV on the way into
the nucleus, so there is only about 0.5 MeV required of the incoming "free"
electron to break the bond.  However, a good portion of the neutron's
binding energy is due the the dipole force.  If that amount is about 0.5
MeV we have broken the neutron, because the superposition of the electron
dipole moment can cancel the proton's (triad) dipole moment.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 10:51:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05031;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:50:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:50:48 -0800
Message-ID: <36740CB7.5DBB earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 11:51:35 -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: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  12.11.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CW36B1.0.TE1.7o0Ts" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25332
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: My response to Dick Blue's latest comments
  Date:  Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:37:10 -0500
  From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net
Rich,

     I haven't yet seen my latest response to Dick Blue.  If this means
you haven't already sent these comments out, I would like to replace
them with the response I am including below.  If you have already sent
these earlier comments out, I would appreciate your forwarding the
following comments as well.
     The comments I am including below are identical with my earlier
comments, with the exception of one area of discussion, concerning
comments made by Dick Blue concerning phase factors and the numbers of
photons involved.  In the newer comments, I have elaborated on and
clarified my earlier comments.

SCOTT

>>      I would appreciate your forwarding the following post, which
>> includes a minor correction to my last response to Dick.  The correction
>> deals with a "somewhat subtle," but important point, concerning
>> "coherent, resonant photons," that I mistated in the previous post.  In
>> particular, in the ground state limit associated with the theory, these
>> "photons" are all "off-mass shell"; i.e., they are virtual photons:
>> their angular frequencies (and energies) are all very close to zero
>> (their angular frequencies are not given  a "reciprocal lattice vector"
>> x c, as stated in the post); while their wave-vectors are given by
>> reciprocal lattice vectors.
>>      The reason this point is important is because there is physics
>> associated with it: a zero frequency photon (as in the Coulomb potential
>> associated with static charges, for example) can impart momentum,
>> instaneously, to moving charges located a finite distance away from it,
>> coherently.  It is this feature of coherently resonating photons that
>> explains how it is possible to eliminate the requirement that energy be
>> dispersed locally in a potential nuclear process, involving a short
>> lifetime, through a coherent, long-ranged form of interaction that
>> resonants throughout the solid.
>>
>Well, I don't see much of the rest of this is worthy of reproduction so
>let's just examine the above stuff to see precisely where all this is
>headed. Are we supposed to believe that there is an infinite sea of
>virtual photons, all off the mass shell, with angular frequencies and
>energies near zero, coherently resonating with something?, transporting
>huge amounts of energy and momentum, and doing it all over infinite
>distances at infinite speed.

The photons transfer momentum over finite distances.  They do not
transfer energy.  They are static.

This may seem odd, but it actually isn't.  And the reason it isn't is
actually based upon the very different physics that is at work in a
solid, as opposed to free space.

The ordinary Coulomb potential can be viewed as resulting from the
exchange of static (i.e., zero frequency) virtual photons, possessing
all possible momenta.  However, these "photons" are always "trapped;"
i.e., they are only allowed to transfer momenta over finite distances,
and it is always necessary for "moving" particles to be involved in
order for momenta to be transferred.

In the case of a solid, the static Coulomb interaction also is at work.
But there are "moving charges" that are capable of receiving and
transferring momenta without transferring energy.  These are the
"particles" (which are actually stationary waves) that have wave
functions that possess Bloch symmetry.  

Quantum mechanically, of course, these "particles" actually "aren't
moving." As I said, they are stationary "waves" in the sense that they
are eigenstates of the system and are capable of "resonating" in a
coherent fashion in which no energy ("motion") is transferred to them,
except at the boundaries of the solid, where periodic order breaks down.

>I must say I find it hard to see just where all this imagined stuff is
>supposed to connect to reality.  

This is the "stuff" that makes solid state physics work.  It is
different, I suggest, because the physics is different.  The situation
is not dynamic.  It is static.  In a static situation, momentum can be
transferred without transferring energy.  This is an important point
that distinguishes solids from free space situations.

>Somewhere we have to have quantitative
>estimates of rates and strengths and probabilities and couplings. 
>Otherwise, it seems to me we could not have confidence that any physical
>system would ever exhibit any form of stable, reproducible behavior.  

23.8 MeV/ 10^9 unit cells = .0238 eV ~ minimal excitation of D+-like
phonon. This "calculation", which I have cited before, defines the
domain size where resonant coherent interaction can occur.

>It might at any second suddenly collapse into some form of degenerative
>decay, the likes of which we have never
>seen.

The situation is static.  Order must be preserved.  The interaction is
coherent.  The transitions are only allowed to be ground state to ground
state.  These facts are responsible for the governing physics and the
lack of decays that your intuition leads you to conclude should be at
work.
 

>So, what is it that might prevent the sort of dissipation of nuclear
>energy that Scott Chubb proposes?  There are two areas that I think
>ought to be explored further, just for starters.  Let us say we have a
>nuclear state, such as two non-interacting deuterons, that is going to
>undergo a transitions to become a 4He nucleus.  Part of this process has
>involve the transport of some 23 MeV of energy to somewhere else.  Now,
>for real photons.

We are not dealing with "real photons."  We are dealing with "bound," or
"trapped", or "virtual" photons (as in the Coulomb potential).  These
are photons whose frequencies are not given by c/wavelength (c=speed of
light).

>The phase space factor is largest when the number of photons is smallest.
 >Why is that not so for this system?  What is it
>that tilts the balance in favor of an infinite number of zero-energy
>photons?

I never said that more than single photon exchange is involved.  This is
your conclusion.  In fact, in the dominant channels, single photon
exchange is involved, which also the case in the Coulomb potential. 
However, again, as in the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves
virtual photons, each of which possesses vanishing frequency.  Also, as
in the Coulomb interaction, the momentum that is transferred can become
large.  (In the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves a summation
over all momenta; in the resonant coherence from periodic order that
occurs in solids, the exchange involves a summation over discrete
momenta, each of which equaling hbar x reciprocal lattice vector.)

What is important to recognize, however, is a very important point
concerning the distinction between "virtual" and "real" photons.  When
"real" photons are present, the photons are present (i.e., they are
observable) in an initial or final state (even when the state is an
intermediate state that subsequently decays).  This means an
energy/momentum conserving delta function, which gives rise to the phase
space factor you are alluding to, is present.  When the photon is always
absorbed and transmitted, through a static, Coulombic process, momentum
conservation still is present, but the standard, "on mass shell" phase
factor that you are alluding to is significantly modified.  In
particular, the momentum is transferred to the absorbing particles.

Thus, because the virtual photons are "off mass shell,"  the phase space
factor  you are accustomed to thinking about is significantly altered. 
It is not defined by the density of states that applies to photons that
"are on mass shell" (i.e. to photons that obey the energy-momentum
relationship frequency = c/wavelength).

Virtual photons do not have a "conventional" phase space factor.  The
remnants of this factor are absorbed into other factors associated with
the matter field.  Most importantly, virtual photons are exchanged only
when there are particles that available to transmit and absorb them. 
They are always trapped by the environment.  They are the basis of the
static Coulomb potential.

>I also have a problem with the concept of doing this instantaneously
>with no need to consider any form of intermediate state.  

This is the way  the Coulomb potential works.

>This, in part, is why I keep coming back to my question about the internal
>nuclear wave functions employed in this theory.  On that point I, once
again, >feel I am being whipsawed back and forth between two
contradictory
statements. 

The behavior of the Coulomb potential in this respect has nothing to do
with the nuclear wave functions.

>In one presentation, Scott Chubb writes 4 separate position coordinate
>vectors, one for each of the four nucleons of a 4He and said, I thought,
>that everthing has Bloch symmetry, i.e. any r is periodic mod R.

Not true, but irrelevant to the point you raise above-

>So I questioned whether it made sense to have neutrons flitting about
>over the entire crystal.  The response I get is that of course they
>don't do that. Each neutron stays real close to its personal proton just
>as I would have guessed.  It is bound into a single potential well and
>all the talk of Bloch symmetry of the wave function has vanished! 

Again, not true: each proton-neutron pair, has Bloch symmetry in the
center of mass variable that is appropriate to the pair when it is
infinitely separated from the remaining pair.

>You've got to stop doing this sort of nonsense at some point, Scott. 
>Can't you just say, once and for all, what radial dependence you assume
>for the interaction between a proton and a neutron within the deuteron?

See last comment.

>If we can ever get beyond this deception concerning the radial
>dependence of nucleon-nucleon potentials, perhaps we can move on to more
>advanced topics like the angular momentum of the various nuclear
>states.  
 
I am not attempting to deceive anyone.  I wish you avoid this kind of
terminology.  It would useful, I think, if you would look at my comments
about the multipole expansion and separability.  The decay portion of
the interaction can not, per se, be isolated from the "collision"
portion, I believe, in a manner that makes the nucleon-nucleon potential
separable from the electromagnetic portion.  For this reason, it is not
clear to me that this particular topic is "advanced."  But it might be
useful to explore it more fully.

>I want to see you do the angular momentum algebra to get from
>two deuterons to one 4He in its ground state.

This is done radiatively, through the virtual photon exchange I
described in my last message.  I will think more fully about the
algebra.

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 14:29:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29003;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:28:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:28:13 -0800
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:20:10 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: "aki ix.netcom.com"@netcom.com
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: letting off steram: Re: Credit Card (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <36728FEC.4CF8 ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981213162241.21303D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"5EbEN.0.257.zz3Ts" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25333
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear AK ...

	Just to set the record straight. [see flag, below] I am not
comfortably ensconced in an 'edu'.  I work at applied science for a
living, self employed since Dec 1995. Sometimes the work is well paying
and stady, often it is not.  I have a 'guest account' because I sometime
lecture, volunteer, no pay, at Antioch College.  I am a 'hardball, nuts
and bolts, belt and suspenders' applied science type.  I 'make things
work' for client customers in industry, and the commercial, academic and
medical communities. 

On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Akira Kawasaki wrote:

> December 12, 1998
> 
> John Schnurer wrote:
> 
> > Subject: Credit Card 
> > I have a client customer who wishes to pay by Master Card.  I do
> > not have a Merchant Account.   Is there or are tere entities who act > as intermediaries for such transactions?
> 
> Kinda tricky using intermediaries, if there are any. The
> 'intermediaries' are exposed to tracking (of all types) themselves. 
> 
> Better to set up a dba merchant account and credit card service. Easy. 
> Probably better since you seem to be offering products from time to
> time. Of course this sets you up for 'tracking' as well.

	------------FLAG -----------
>  
> Get your feet wet in  the opportunities and travails of business.
> Experience the bumps of working your butt off, pay unreasonable taxes,
> keep endless paperwork, and have not much to show for the activity much
> less prospects for retirement.
>  
	My feet are wet..... up to my mustache...


> Expose yourself to the position learning how taxes are generated to the
> extent of taking, overall, over 50% of incomes of the working stiff ---
> which does encourage creative accounting and degenerates morals.
> Somebody calculated that in history, a govermental system starts to fall
> apart when taxation exceeds 32%.
> 
> I am not begrudging your situation.


 You got it 'made in the shade' as
> they put it for enviable situations seen by those in poverty.

	My situation is that of any very small business....

 You seem
> to be comfortably escounced in a 'edu'. Quit it and face the bracing air
> of going into business for yourself, to have to live off of it. 
> The business failure rate is over 80% by the way, and most do not last
> over 5 years, statistically. I wonder what you would advocate, by
> experience, to lower the failure rate?

	I have not yet 'failed' but am in debt.

	I would advocate alliance with persons skilled in business dealings..

> 
> -ak-
> 
> ps: Just thought off this after the steam was let off.  I think the
> credit card user can purchase a postal money order then send that to
> you.
> 
> 
	Business.  Much of what I do is find the solution to a 'problem' 
.. which I prefer to look at and call a puzzle .. which plagues a client 
customer.   A minority of the cases involve the transfer of 
information.   I have skill, talent and much experience in finding extant 
solutions.   Those restricted to data bases will not find the extant 
work... much or it is not to be found in ANY data base or by ANY search 
engines.  One narrow eample of this is non classified DoD and other 
federal research.  I have access to many sources, including more than 20 
technical libraries in Area B of Wright Patterson US Air Force Base.  
Area B is largely a research facility and there is a huge body of owrjk 
in diverse disciplines none of which is in any data base.
	I am usually found by word of mouth and as having a reputation 
for trying to do the un doable.  Sometimes I am a 'court of last resort' 
... and I come on the scene AFTER much money has been spent with others, 
the water is dirty or poisoned, the deadlines loom and jaws are tight and 
faces are red.  But I ofetn get the job done.  Much of the work involves 
actually building a proof of concept 'goo frammus' ... and the client 
customer can then use their own engineering staff to take it from there.

	Other stuff.

	Some of my client custormers come to me for the 'other stuff'.
I am a scholar of the history and ethics of science.  I find and 
many times ressurect the lost .... methods, technologies, and, my 
greatest interest, instrumentation.

	I will describe two such 'ressurections' ... these are offered 
for sale, to any comers as they are not now nor were every part ofa 
federally funded effort, not do they fall under the classifications of 
restricted technologies.  

	Contact me off line, please.   These offerings can be had at 
several levels.  From simple design, to  kits of parts, to 
built-and-tested.   These are not cheap, but they cannot be found 
elsewhere, to my knowledge.  They represent years of digging.  The 
original instruments were vacuum tube instruments.  I have also designed 
solid state and-or hybrid versions.

	These examples are only two.  There is no 'list of goods', per 
se, but if you have a need or request, run it by me.

	For the below, contact me off lime for the varios levels and prices.

	RADIONICS:

	In the 1950s there was reputed to ne a radionics device which 
dealt with insect crop pests, which it killed,  discouraged or otherwise 
drove off.  Ukraco is the name of the purported company ... and this 
information of sketchy ... it might be a person's name.
	The design used two vacuum tubes.  A 'witness' was used as the 
input, and the output was an antenna.   I have the full design, original, 
including the power supply.  In this case all of the original parts can 
still be had.  I also have solid state equivalent design.  The original 
tube design operated from the 115 VAC line potentials.

	MINERAL EXPLORATION

	In the same general era there was a device which was used for
exploration of, primarily, precious mineral ore bodies, such as gold,
silver and so on.  It employed a well known and established methodology of
sensing potentials ... very very small potentials in the earth.  These
potentials are sometimes called self potentials, or SP, and are largely
due to differences in the electromotive potentials from ore bodies.  The 
mechanisms which cause the SP are covered in depth in many texts on 
geophysical exploration and can come from different mechanisms.  Some SP 
come from differences in soil composition, some from free mineral or 
elements and combinations .. as well as many other mechanisms.
	The device was called Oratron and incorporated two vacuum tubes, 
one of which is VERY hard to find.   There are several levels offered, 
including but not limited to; full orginal design, design  modiifed to 
use a less hard to find tube, full or hybrid solid state design.  The 
original design operated from batteries.


	The above represent only two of hundreds.

				JHS



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 14:46:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01690;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:45:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:45:20 -0800
Message-ID: <014c01be26ea$265a2fc0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: The Flying Rocket Powered Outhouse! (http://www.jldr.com/ohflout.html)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:40:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE26AE.EA974620"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"4upXr2.0.AQ.0E4Ts" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25334
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_0034_01BE26AE.EA974620
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OFF TOPIC; When NASA was NACA,Frank?  :-)

http://www.jldr.com/ohflout.html

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE26AE.EA974620
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Flying Rocket Powered Outhouse!.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Flying Rocket Powered Outhouse!.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.jldr.com/ohflout.html
Modified=8016053AE926BE01A3

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BE26AE.EA974620--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 15:54:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00745;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b29a03a72bda [208.228.222.104]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:58:58 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"9SS_y3.0.YB.GC5Ts" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25335
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just wrote: "Looking again at the neutron, if its bond energy is 2.2 MeV,
and the beta carries away 1.7 MeV, then there is only about 1 MeV left to
break the bond.  An incoming energetic electron gains about 0.5 MeV on the
way into the nucleus, so there is only about 0.5 MeV required of the
incoming "free" electron to break the bond.  However, a good portion of the
neutron's binding energy is due the the dipole force.  If that amount is
about 0.5 MeV we have broken the neutron, because the superposition of the
electron dipole moment can cancel the proton's (triad) dipole moment."


If the bond breaking energy comes from energy in the neutron itself (or its
triad) then perhaps the result of spallation by electron is either (1) a
proton plus a light neutron plus two betas, at least one of which is
energetic or (2) a light neutron plus a heavy neutron or (3) two light
neutrons, the energy burden shared between them in a randomized way.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 17:12:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21110;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:59:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b29a0dd05223 [208.228.222.104]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:05:59 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"8vfYX2.0.l95.WB6Ts" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25336
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If we assume the neutron can contribute 1.7 MeV towards breaking the
deuteron bond by freeing its electron, and another 0.5 MeV is contributed
by the coulomb barrier to the incoming electron, then the only energy
requirement upon the incoming electron is that its final deBroglie
wavelength upon approaching the nucleus be short enough to not overlap the
proton until very close.

If this picture is correct, then a CF reaction could be intiated in a
loaded lattice by cosmic rays stirring up some lattice electrons.  The
requirement for sustaining the reaction is then the production of more
excited electrons from the reactions.  This might be achieved by doping the
lattice with atoms that would tend to emit or stir up energetic betas upon
absorbing light neutrons, i.e. after fissioning.  Since no electron
moderation is necessary or possible, experimentation in this area with
positive results could result in a nuclear explosion.

The possibility of electron induced spallation is interesting in the fact
that the following combinations of outputs can sustain a chain reaction in
the right lattice mix:

    (a) an energetic beta plus a light neutron

    (b) two energetic betas

    (c) two light neutrons

A mix of all the above could sustain a chain reaction.

If electron induced spallation is the reason behind CF episodes, then an
interesting consequence is that *protium,* not tritium or helium, in the
lattice would be a positive indication of this kind of event occuring.

If spallation is a result of electron interaction, as described, it is an
interesting consequence that the anticipated energy yield would be lower
than expected with "heavy" neutrons.  However, if stripped light neutrons
are (can be) used to fission heavy nucleii, then plenty of excess energy
would be available.   There seems to be evidence that low energy nuclear
transmutation, without characterisitc signatures, has been observed in
electrodes, and, as you point out Fred, a light neutron provides a possible
explanation for this.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 13 18:25:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12816;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:21:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:21:46 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b29a05899d49 [208.228.222.104]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:06:50 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"zBJ6H2.0.A83.wO7Ts" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25337
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Let's see if I can get this right this time!  8^)  Sorry, I've been very
distracted with other things.

Considering that a neutron ejects its beta with 0.7 MeV, the beta must be
actually ejected from the nucleus with abotu 1.2 MeV, where about 0.5 MeV
is lost upon the beta traversing the coulomb barrier.

Looking again at the deuteron, if its bond energy is 2.2 MeV, and the beta
frrom the neutron carries 1.7 MeV, then there is only about 1 MeV left to
break the deuteron's neutron-proton bond.  An incoming energetic electron
gains about 0.5 MeV on the way into the nucleus, so there is only about 0.5
MeV required of the incoming "free" electron to break the deuteron bond.
However, a good portion of the deuteron's binding energy is due the the
dipole force.  If that amount is about 0.5 MeV we have broken the deuteron,
because the superposition of the electron dipole moment can cancel the
proton's (or triad's ) dipole moment.

If the bond breaking energy comes from energy in the neutron itself (or its
triad) then perhaps the result of spallation by electron is either (1) a
proton plus a light neutron plus two betas, at least one of which is
energetic or (2) a light neutron plus a heavy neutron or (3) two light
neutrons, the energy burden shared between them in a randomized way.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 09:30:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23282;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:28:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:28:49 -0800
Message-ID: <36754AFA.561F earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:29:30 -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
CC: schultr mail.biu.ac.il, schultr@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
Subject: schultz: Britz: problems in Miles He data  12.13.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8sHYv.0.ch5.GhKTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25338
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Commensurate helium production in cold fusion
       Date: 13 Dec 1998 17:45:39 GMT
       From:  schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
   Reply-To:  correct address in .sigfile
Organization:  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
 Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
 References:   1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

britz (britz kemi.aau.dk) wrote:

: This argument cannot be resolved by mud slinging in this group. The
: sticking point is, where does the measured helium come from? If Miles
: et al can document convincingly that whatever helium they measure does
: not come in as contamination from the air and is, thus, a product of
the
: reaction in the cell, then they have a case, whether the amount
detected
: is precisely commensurate with some other signature, or only roughly.
: I'd be happy with an order of magnitude, given the difficulty of
: measurement. The point is, however, that skeptics are not satisfied
: that contamination was ruled out. At this point, we cannot get any
further,
: until we have new results with better error exclusion. I can't be the
: only one tired of this "Troll" series of posts.

The problem with their report goes beyond the question of contamination.
Several problems with the data themselves become obvious, especially
when you compare the data reported in the 1993 paper with that reported
in the 1991 paper (J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271-278).  First of
all, the two papers are reporting the identical data, as a comparison
of Tables 2 and 3 of the 1991 paper with Tables 1 and 2 of the 1993 
paper immediately shows.  The difference is that the division of mass
spectrometer peaks into "big," "medium," and "small" is replaced with
"10^14 atoms He", "10^13 atoms He", "10^12 atoms He."  No mention is
made of any attempt actually to calibrate the mass spectrometer.  As
far as I can tell, they read their MS results on an analog oscilloscope.
In the olden days, people would photograph scope traces and publish
the photographs.  No such data appear in either paper.  Thus, we have
to take their word for it that the MS really could distinguish D2 from
He, and that the three sizes of peaks really correspond to changes by
factors of 10 in size (and that the MS detector responded linearly
with amount of He, etc.).  Even if you accept their (rather ad hoc)
"quantitation," there are other problems.  For example, the 1991 paper
claims that the detectibility limit was about 8 x 10^11 atoms He/sample;
and Table 1 of that paper reports that one sample showed "more He than
expected."  In the 1993 paper, the detection limit has become about 2 x
10^12 atoms He/sample (although Table 2 still reports some samples as
having "10^12 atoms He/sample").  And the 1993 paper makes reference to
a commercial MS that had a detectibility limit an order of magnitude
higher.  Their  complete lack of quantitation of any of this; their
failure to calibrate their MS by using known amounts of He (e.g. from a
"standard leak" which is used to calibrate He leak detectors); their
apparent failure to determine the true ability to separate D2 from He by
taking mass spectra of known mixtures; combined to make me suspect the
MS data altogether.  I'm not saying that they didn't see any He -- only
that their report doesn't exclude the possibility that their uncertainty
was a lot bigger than they thought it was.  

When you get to the data reported in Table 2 of the 1993 paper, you
find that by their own admission, runs that produced the same excess
power produced He amounts differing by an order of magnitude.  When you
also consider that their reported excess power varies by a factor of
less than four, while their reported He production varies by a factor
of 100, their claims of correlation seem to me to be rather optimistic.

They also left a whopping clue that there may be unexpected errors in
their calorimetry.  In the 1991 paper, they reported "unexplained 
excess heat effects" with LiOH + H2O.  By 1993, they had explained these
effects as being due to poor sealing of the cell.  But if the two sets
of experiments (LiOD/D2O and LiOH/H2O) were done under identical
conditions, then why could not the same problem have occurred in the
LiOD/D2O cells? And if they were not, what use was the LiOH/H2O as a
control?  Note also that in 1993, they were unable to reproduce even the
LiOD/D2O results with new electrodes.

So really, the issue is not "is finding He production within an
order of magnitude evidence for a CF event."  The issue is "given the
methods they used, would they have been actually able to measure He
production at that level."  From the data they show, the answer has
to be that we can't tell if they could or not.  From my perspective,
that means that they haven't demonstrated the He production, even if
there was He production in their experiment.
-----
Richard Schultz                                   schultr mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                           tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel            fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 10:24:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02660;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:22:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:22:31 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b29af97ab8b6 [208.228.222.165]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:30:10 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"gDi-q.0.Uf.dTLTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25339
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If we assume the neutron can contribute 1.2 MeV towards breaking the
deuteron bond by freeing its electron inside the nucleus, plus about 0.5
MeV from cancellation of the dipole force by the freed electron and/or the
incoming electron superpositioning cand cancelling a proton dipole field,
and another 0.5 MeV is contributed by the coulomb well to the incoming
electron, then the only energy requirement upon the incoming electron is
that its final deBroglie wavelength upon approaching the nucleus be short
enough to not overlap the proton until very close.

Looking at this non-relativistically, we can see that the deBroglie
wavelength of the incoming electron is given by L = h/p, where p is the
momentum of the electron.  The potential in the coulomb well of the
hydrogen nucleus is given by v = q/(4 Pi E0 r) so energy gained by the
incoming electron is proportional to 1/r.  The process inside a lattice
must begin at about 0.32 angstoms.  Now: p=h/L, where p=mv so: mv=h/L,
v*(9.11E-31kg)=(6.626E-34 joule*sec)/(0.32E-10 m), v=2.273E7m/sec.  Looking
at energy, E=.5mv^2=(.5)(9.11E-31kg)(2.27E7)^2, E=2.353E-16joule/(1.602
E-19 joule/eV)=1470 eV.  So, right off, a minimal energy electron to
initiate the process inside a lattice should be about 1470 eV.  This can
not be accomplished by temperature alone because 1eV=1.15E4 deg K, so the
temperature would be 1470*1.16E4=17,000,000 deg K.

If we want to collect 0.511 MeV from the approach of the incoming electron
it must be capable of being accelerated toward the nucleus up to a radius
given by:

   r = q/(4 Pi E0 E) = (1.6E-19 coul)(9.0E10 nt-m^2/coul^2)/E

where r is in meters when E in Volts. So:

   r = (1.6E-19 coul)(9.0E10 nt-m^2/coul^2)/(511,000 V) =

   r = 2.82E-14 m

to double the mass-energy of the incoming electron to 1.022 MeV.

Relativistically speaking, however, we know that the final energy E and
intital energy E0 are related to the momentum by:

   E^2 = E0^2 + (p c)^2

so:

   (1.022 MeV)^2 = (0.511 MeV^2) + (p c)^2

   (p c)^2 = 1.04484 - .261121 = 0.783363

   p = 0.885 MeV/c         (at a distance of 2.82E-14 m)

   p = (0.885 MeV/c)(5.33E-22 (kg-m/s)/MeV/c))

   p = 4.72E-22 kg-m/s

But now we have a wavelength:

  L = h/p = (6.626E-34 joule*sec)/(4.72E-22 kg-m/s)

  L = 1.4E-12 m

so the electron is too big at the distance 2.82E-14 m by a factor of 50.
It overlapped the nucleus at least in part for the last appx. 7E-13 m of
its journey, so could not gain the anticipated energy. The initial incoming
electron must have a considerable intial energy to reach the nucleus
without waveform overlap, i.e. to gain the 0.511 MeV from the coulomb well.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 11:19:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22210;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b29b0b43e67f [208.228.222.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:16:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"BBaCY.0.yQ5.SDMTs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25340
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

So, now we solve backwards to find the required intial energy of the
inbound electron so that it can gain 0.511 MeV on its way to r = 2.82E-14
m.

We thus start with:

   L = 2.82E-14 m

   p = h/L = (6.626E-34 joule*sec)/(2.82E-14 m) = 2.25E-20 kg-m/s

   p = 42.2 MeV/c

   E^2 = E0^2 + (p c)^2

   (E0 + 0.511 MeV)^2 = E0^2 + (42.2 MeV)^2

   E0^2 + 1.022*E0 -42 = 0

   E0 = [-1.022 +- sqrt(1.044 + 4*42)]/2

   E0 = 12 MeV

So, subtracting the 0.511 rest mass, the kinetic energy if the initial
electron must be 11.5 MeV to gain all the the 0.511 MeV falling into the
coulomb well, if I did all that right.

This is a bit unsatisfying, to say the least.

I do see one error right off.  The overlap from the center of charge is
only 1/2 L, so I should have begun with L = (2.82E-14 m)/2.  This gives p =
21.1 and

   E0^2 + 1.022*E0 - 20.8 = 0

   E0 = [-1.022 +- sqrt(1.044 + 4*20.8)]/2

   E0 = 8 MeV

so the kinetic energy of the initial electron must be about 7.5 MeV.
Electron spallation does not seem to hold as an explantion for low energy
stripping, or CF, but it does open up some new possibilities for chain
reactions.

Do I have some mistakes here?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 12:42:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26252;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:38:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:38:19 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:46:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"DmZHL.0.5Q6.wSNTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25341
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The problem of calculating the energy gained by an electron falling into
the coulomb well is complicated.  An accurate computation requires
determining the charge distribution about the falling electron's center of
charge, including relativistic adjustments for the forshortening of the
charge cloud due to Lorentz contraction as c is approached.  The force must
be reduced by the portion of the charge cloud of the falling electron which
is beyond the nucleus.

While it is clear that the coulomb well is over 0.5 MeV deep, it is not
clear the falling electron is small enough to fall all the way down the
well - at least far enough with enough locality to affect the nucleus.  It
is also not clear the electron can be small enough that its dipole moment
will cancel, in large part, the dipole moment of the proton or neutron,
thus breaking the dipole portion of the deuteron bond.  On the other hand,
the data point is that stripping does occur in deuterium at low energies,
less than 10 keV.  *Something* must kick the neutron loose.

One thought of interest is that, to account for CF, the incoming electron
need not get anywhere near as close to the nucleus as to induce stripping.
The reduction in size of the deutrium atom to only 1/10 its size would
produce a very significant increase in the tunneling rate.  An incoming
electron, even though highly overlapped with the deuteron, thus reducing
the attractive force and depth of the coulomb well, creates a kind of
momentary pseudo-atom, thus shielding the nucleus from the coulomb barrier
of another adjacent nucleus, thus could allow it to get close enough to
another nucleus to make tunneling a significant probablity.  This kind of
shielding effect should begin to be significant at about 1 keV.  It is also
notable that the inital electron momentum will push the pseudo atom towards
its neighbor as it gets smaller, thus further increasing the opportunity
for tunneling.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 13:53:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02012;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:48:44 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:48:15 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <367586d9.173768247 24.192.1.20>
References: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
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: <"9me_O2.0.JV.uUOTs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25342
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:46:03 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
[snip]
>less than 10 keV.  *Something* must kick the neutron loose.
>
[snip]
I was under the impression that stripping never results in two free
particles. I.e. it only ever happens when either the proton or the
neutron is absorbed by another nucleus. In either case the absorbtion
of either provides more than enough energy for the breakup of the
deuteron.
Is this wrong?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 14:32:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA12265;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:30:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:30:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981214173206.00ecd4c0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:32:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <367586d9.173768247 24.192.1.20>
References: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
 <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"inNR12.0.Z_2.t5PTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25343
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:48 PM 12/14/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>I was under the impression that stripping never results in two free
>particles. I.e. it only ever happens when either the proton or the
>neutron is absorbed by another nucleus. In either case the absorbtion
>of either provides more than enough energy for the breakup of the
>deuteron.
>Is this wrong?
 
   In practice no.  The name originally

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 14:36:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15523;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:35:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:35:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981214173655.00b0a280 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:36:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
In-Reply-To: <367586d9.173768247 24.192.1.20>
References: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
 <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YoFwq.0.No3.QAPTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25344
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:48 PM 12/14/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>I was under the impression that stripping never results in two free
>particles. I.e. it only ever happens when either the proton or the
>neutron is absorbed by another nucleus. In either case the absorbtion
>of either provides more than enough energy for the breakup of the
>deuteron.
>Is this wrong?
 
   Not at low energies, the energy must come from somewhere.  At higher
energies you can get pure splitting of deuterium, and that is where the
name comes from.  Of course, the low energy effect is much more interesting.


  (Sorry about the last message, I hit the wrong key when editing.)


                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 14:55:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22714;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:52:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:52:14 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:52:03 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: list physics teaching <phys-l lists.nau.edu>, webhead-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Passionate minds
In-Reply-To: <36753F09.D4FB7603 ceptualinstitute.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981214144746.23465F-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ahlik1.0.mY5.TQPTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25345
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Somebody somewhere gave me a heads-up on the book "Passionate Minds: the
Inner World of Scientists."   I see that it's on Amazon, and after reading
the review I see I now must buy myself a christmas gift...
(see below)

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

Passionate Minds : The Inner World of Scientists
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198549040

   Reality is not the only figment in the book. Stewart and Cohen use a
   group of eight "weird alien beings from the planet Zarathustra,
   resembling fluffy yellow ostriches but with much stranger habits" as a
   sounding board, as comedy relief, and as a philosophical-experimental
   playpen. To quote:

     "Ringmaster: What is this?
   
     Liar-to-children [=teacher]: A continuing educational narrative of
     some kind, Ringmaster. Based upon a revered/reviled (delete
     whichever is inapplicable) ancient text. [Watches the screen and
     interprets the tale that unfolds--a long and dramatic story of an
     exploding universe, elements born in stars, complex carbon-based
     molecular machines, a doubly-helical genetic molecule, the origins
     of life, evolution, sense organs, brains, minds, and intelligence.]

     R: What a fascinating narrative.

     LtC: And such a convincing story.

     Destroyer-of-facts [=scientist]: Such vigor and power! Such unified
     scientific insight!

     R: Not a word out of place, no loose ends--amazing!

     ALL: [In unison] Must be wrong, then."

   Read it and think, read it and giggle, read it and come back for more.
   At long last, a worthy successor to Godel, Escher, Bach, updated,
   twisted, and put through a Monty Python filter.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 15:16:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00346;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:14:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:14:03 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b29b4d0a5ab4 [208.228.222.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:21:47 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"3UdMw2.0.K5.xkPTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25346
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 09:48 PM 12/14/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>I was under the impression that stripping never results in two free
>>particles. I.e. it only ever happens when either the proton or the
>>neutron is absorbed by another nucleus. In either case the absorbtion
>>of either provides more than enough energy for the breakup of the
>>deuteron.
>>Is this wrong?
>
>   Not at low energies, the energy must come from somewhere.  At higher
>energies you can get pure splitting of deuterium, and that is where the
>name comes from.  Of course, the low energy effect is much more interesting.
>
>
>  (Sorry about the last message, I hit the wrong key when editing.)
>
>
>                                        Robert I. Eachus



If that is the case then the creation of the proposed pseudo-atom by the
inbound electron of sufficient energy might help provide an explanation for
ordinary stripping.  The neutron isn't really stripped at all.  If this is
the case, though, there should be a high incidence of *both* the neutron
and proton being absorbed, and that is not the case, is it?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 15:55:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12759;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01bc01be27bb$d8dbbe80$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_Brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:44:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"l-sD_2.0.H73.EIQTs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25347
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You sure work hard, Horace.  :-)

Theory: Electron (E = .511 Mev, R = 2.815E-15 Meters) with a potential kq/R
at 2.815 Fermi (it's Radius) of .511 Mev,
is absorbed by the deuteron forming a Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair and
subsequently emitting a neutrino and forming an UNBOUND "Light
Neutron-Neutron Pair. When the "Light Neutron is Absorbed by ANY NUCLEUS
Heavier Than a Proton
it's Mass/Energy is restored.

Short of this the Electron-Deuteron Collision (Electromagnetic Interaction)
can "Borrow Energy" from the  the deuteron; dE = hbar/dt which is
replenished from the VACUUM (ZPE). THIS IS  ALLOWED PHYSICS. Look up
Feynman's (World Line) Diagrams.



             Proton    Deuteron    Neutron   Light Neutron

AMU         1.007825   2.0140     1.008665      1.00533

No.of quarks    3         8            5           5

E,-Mev       938.285   1876.04      939.571      936.465

Mev/quark     312.762   234.505     187.914      187.293

quark radius  4.6E-18   6.13E-18    7.66E-18      7.68E-18

Have fun.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 17:28:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA21525;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:26:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:26:26 -0800
Message-ID: <01e201be27c9$cd9bc480$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS (http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/qed.htm)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:24:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE278E.ED1EA380"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"fmv_52.0.AG5.1hRTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25348
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_01BE278E.ED1EA380
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Re; Feynman Diagrams Etc.

http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/qed.htm

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE278E.ED1EA380
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/qed.htm
Modified=A02AD86FC927BE01C0

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01BE278E.ED1EA380--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 17:45:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA28109;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:43:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:43:29 -0800
Message-ID: <023a01be27cc$3001f980$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Feynman Diagrams (http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/fineman.html)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:42:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE2791.750A40E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bp-lz1.0.7t6.1xRTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25349
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_0061_01BE2791.750A40E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cute.  :-)

http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/fineman.html

------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE2791.750A40E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Feynman Diagrams.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Feynman Diagrams.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/fineman.html
Modified=401FA808CC27BE01C1

------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE2791.750A40E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 17:48:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29058;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:46:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:46:40 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b29b6d949a34 [208.228.222.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:54:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"7lPR_2.0.t57._zRTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25350
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>You sure work hard, Horace.  :-)


Blue skying is hardly work.  8^)  However, getting things to work is work.
Shovelling snow, which I have done plenty of lately, is really hard work.


>
>Theory: Electron (E = .511 Mev, R = 2.815E-15 Meters) with a potential kq/R
>at 2.815 Fermi (it's Radius) of .511 Mev,

Only an imaginary radius.  Electrons "don't work like that."  If they did
atoms would collapse.


>is absorbed by the deuteron forming a Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair and
>subsequently emitting a neutrino and forming an UNBOUND "Light
>Neutron-Neutron Pair. When the "Light Neutron is Absorbed by ANY NUCLEUS
>Heavier Than a Proton
>it's Mass/Energy is restored.
>
>Short of this the Electron-Deuteron Collision (Electromagnetic Interaction)
>can "Borrow Energy" from the  the deuteron; dE = hbar/dt which is
>replenished from the VACUUM (ZPE). THIS IS  ALLOWED PHYSICS. Look up
>Feynman's (World Line) Diagrams.


Yes, we all know energy can be borrwed, but the amount of time large
amounts can be borrowed is very small, and it gets paid back.  Also,
electron capture, wich results in a true neutron, is a weak reaction with a
very very small cross section.  By its sheer volume (high probability)
stripping does not appear to be a weak reaction.  The quarks in the light
neutron must remain unchanged.


>
>
>
>             Proton    Deuteron    Neutron   Light Neutron
>
>AMU         1.007825   2.0140     1.008665      1.00533
>
>No.of quarks    3         8            5           5

What??  Try      3         6            3           3
Quarks:         uud      uududd        udd         uud (plus 1 lepton)
************************************************************************

>
>E,-Mev       938.285   1876.04      939.571      936.465
>
>Mev/quark     312.762   234.505     187.914      187.293
>
>quark radius  4.6E-18   6.13E-18    7.66E-18      7.68E-18
>
>Have fun.   :-)
>
>Regards,    Frederick

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 18:00:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA02812;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:58:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:58:39 -0800
Message-ID: <3675C267.6033 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:59:03 -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: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  12.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sY3Fh.0.sh.E9STs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25351
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 12.11.98
  Date:  Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:42:07 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

Scott Chubb response:>
> The photons transfer momentum over finite distances.  They do not
> transfer energy.  They are static.
>
> This may seem odd, but it actually isn't.  And the reason it isn't is
> actually based upon the very different physics that is at work in a
> solid, as opposed to free space.
>
> The ordinary Coulomb potential can be viewed as resulting from the
> exchange of static (i.e., zero frequency) virtual photons, possessing
> all possible momenta.  However, these "photons" are always "trapped;"
> i.e., they are only allowed to transfer momenta over finite distances,
> and it is always necessary for "moving" particles to be involved in
> order for momenta to be transferred.

Basically this is more "theory" that really has very little information
content that will clarify the issues under discussion.  If all Scott
Chubb is describing is a static solid, as the above seems to indicate,
we are done.  The static solid remaims stable.  There are no
transistions, and there is no energy release.  As I have said before,
this is not a reaction theory.  It is a theory of no reactions.  As
Scott plainly states, the zero-energy virtual photons don't transfer any
energy.  They just hold the lattice together.  Big Deal!  Have we waited
9 years for that?

> In the case of a solid, the static Coulomb interaction also is at work.
> But there are "moving charges" that are capable of receiving and
> transferring momenta without transferring energy.  These are the
> "particles" (which are actually stationary waves) that have wave
> functions that possess Bloch symmetry.
>
> Quantum mechanically, of course, these "particles" actually "aren't
> moving." As I said, they are stationary "waves" in the sense that they
> are eigenstates of the system and are capable of "resonating" in a
> coherent fashion in which no energy ("motion") is transferred to them,
> except at the boundaries of the solid, where periodic order breaks down.

Just who do you think you are addressing?  I have not challenged your
theory for ion band deuteron states.  I just don't see any connection
to a nuclear reaction process.  But when I try to penetrate your
thinking about the nuclear physics, all I get is more blather about the
solid state. Why can we discuss the nuclear state?  Surely your theory
must address that aspect somehow.

> >I must say I find it hard to see just where all this imagined stuff is
> >supposed to connect to reality.
>
> This is the "stuff" that makes solid state physics work.  It is
> different, I suggest, because the physics is different.  The situation
> is not dynamic.  It is static.  In a static situation, momentum can be
> transferred without transferring energy.  This is an important point
> that distinguishes solids from free space situations.
>
> >Somewhere we have to have quantitative
> >estimates of rates and strengths and probabilities and couplings.
> >Otherwise, it seems to me we could not have confidence that any physical
> >system would ever exhibit any form of stable, reproducible behavior.
>
So the solid state physics works.  Can we move on to a discussion of the
nuclear state physics, which is what does not work as you have claimed.
We are not describing a static system.  Deuterons in and helium plus
energy out has to involve some nuclear dynamics.  If, as I have come
to suspect, you are not prepared to discuss nuclear dynamics, you have
absolutely nothing to say about a CANR process.

> 23.8 MeV/ 10^9 unit cells = .0238 eV ~ minimal excitation of D+-like
> phonon. This "calculation", which I have cited before, defines the
> domain size where resonant coherent interaction can occur.

What this proves is that, according to Chubb theory, any nuclear state
of excitation in a periodic lattice is subject to instant deexcitation
via a resonant coherent interaction of the type he describes.  His
division by the number of unit cells can result in a match for any
nuclear state energy to something appropriate to a lattice phonon
spectrum.  But there is clearly something wrong here.  If this picture
were reasonable, we should also consider the time-reversed version, i.e.
excitation of the nuclear state.  What this leads to, I believe, is the
notion that nuclear excitations are actually in thermal equilibrium with
the lattice.  So, if we can input deuterons and output helium, we should
be able to reverse that process.

> >It might at any second suddenly collapse into some form of degenerative
> >decay, the likes of which we have never
> >seen.
>
> The situation is static.  Order must be preserved.  The interaction is
> coherent.  The transitions are only allowed to be ground state to ground
> state.  These facts are responsible for the governing physics and the
> lack of decays that your intuition leads you to conclude should be at
> work.

What is special about ground states?  Where in the lattice have you
located the intelligence that can recognize a ground state as opposed to
an excited state?

> We are not dealing with "real photons."  We are dealing with "bound," or
> "trapped", or "virtual" photons (as in the Coulomb potential).  These
> are photons whose frequencies are not given by c/wavelength (c=speed of
> light).
>
> >The phase space factor is largest when the number of photons is smallest.
>  >Why is that not so for this system?  What is it
> >that tilts the balance in favor of an infinite number of zero-energy
> >photons?
>
> I never said that more than single photon exchange is involved.  This is
> your conclusion.  In fact, in the dominant channels, single photon
> exchange is involved, which also the case in the Coulomb potential.
> However, again, as in the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves
> virtual photons, each of which possesses vanishing frequency.  Also, as
> in the Coulomb interaction, the momentum that is transferred can become
> large.  (In the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves a summation
> over all momenta; in the resonant coherence from periodic order that
> occurs in solids, the exchange involves a summation over discrete
> momenta, each of which equaling hbar x reciprocal lattice vector.)

There are lots of things you have never said.  That is why I keep asking
questions.  One problem is that you are treating as "static" something
that must be dynamic.

> What is important to recognize, however, is a very important point
> concerning the distinction between "virtual" and "real" photons.  When
> "real" photons are present, the photons are present (i.e., they are
> observable) in an initial or final state (even when the state is an
> intermediate state that subsequently decays).  This means an
> energy/momentum conserving delta function, which gives rise to the phase
> space factor you are alluding to, is present.  When the photon is always
> absorbed and transmitted, through a static, Coulombic process, momentum
> conservation still is present, but the standard, "on mass shell" phase
> factor that you are alluding to is significantly modified.  In
> particular, the momentum is transferred to the absorbing particles.
>
> Thus, because the virtual photons are "off mass shell,"  the phase space
> factor  you are accustomed to thinking about is significantly altered.
> It is not defined by the density of states that applies to photons that
> "are on mass shell" (i.e. to photons that obey the energy-momentum
> relationship frequency = c/wavelength).

> Virtual photons do not have a "conventional" phase space factor.  The
> remnants of this factor are absorbed into other factors associated with
> the matter field.  Most importantly, virtual photons are exchanged only
> when there are particles that available to transmit and absorb them.
> They are always trapped by the environment.  They are the basis of the
> static Coulomb potential.

Forgive my error.  I thought we were discussing a dynamic nuclear
reaction process.  Of course, once we learn that I am mistaken in that
regard, much of what I have been saying does not apply.

> >This, in part, is why I keep coming back to my question about the internal
> >nuclear wave functions employed in this theory.  On that point I, once
> again, >feel I am being whipsawed back and forth between two
> contradictory
> statements.
>
> The behavior of the Coulomb potential in this respect has nothing to do
> with the nuclear wave functions.
>
> >In one presentation, Scott Chubb writes 4 separate position coordinate
> >vectors, one for each of the four nucleons of a 4He and said, I thought,
> >that everthing has Bloch symmetry, i.e. any r is periodic mod R.
>
> Not true, but irrelevant to the point you raise above-
>
> >So I questioned whether it made sense to have neutrons flitting about
> >over the entire crystal.  The response I get is that of course they
> >don't do that. Each neutron stays real close to its personal proton just
> >as I would have guessed.  It is bound into a single potential well and
> >all the talk of Bloch symmetry of the wave function has vanished!
>
> Again, not true: each proton-neutron pair, has Bloch symmetry in the
> center of mass variable that is appropriate to the pair when it is
> infinitely separated from the remaining pair.

Once again let me say that we could have saved tons of time if Scott
Chubb had been more direct and forthcoming about the limited scope of
this theory. If he will just admit that he has not given any
consideration to the internal wave function of a deuteron, and is
ignoring the fact that a deuteron is a composite, we can rather quickly
demonstrate the inadequacy of his theory.

> >You've got to stop doing this sort of nonsense at some point, Scott.
> >Can't you just say, once and for all, what radial dependence you assume
> >for the interaction between a proton and a neutron within the deuteron?
>
> See last comment.

> >If we can ever get beyond this deception concerning the radial
> >dependence of nucleon-nucleon potentials, perhaps we can move on to more
> >advanced topics like the angular momentum of the various nuclear
> >states.
>
> I am not attempting to deceive anyone.  I wish you avoid this kind of
> terminology.  It would useful, I think, if you would look at my comments
> about the multipole expansion and separability.  The decay portion of
> the interaction can not, per se, be isolated from the "collision"
> portion, I believe, in a manner that makes the nucleon-nucleon potential
> separable from the electromagnetic portion.  For this reason, it is not
> clear to me that this particular topic is "advanced."  But it might be
> useful to explore it more fully.

Well, let me explain this a bit better.  You have been asserting
something about coherence of wave functions which, I believe can only be
properly addressed if we have a complete description of the nuclear
state.  You, it seems, are not prepared to describe the nuclear state. 
In that case, I don't believe there is very much your theory can do to
address the questions relating to coherence as they relate to the
deuteron - helium transitions.

> >I want to see you do the angular momentum algebra to get from
> >two deuterons to one 4He in its ground state.
>
> This is done radiatively, through the virtual photon exchange I
> described in my last message.  I will think more fully about the
> algebra.

So are you claiming to have worked out the radiative deexcitation via
virtual photon exchange without having considered the angular momentum
of these systems?  Pardon me, but there is a problem here.

You will notice the problem, I believe, the very first time you actually
think about the nuclear states of this system.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 18:38:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA14893;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:35:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:35:36 -0800
Message-ID: <3675CB09.57A0 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:35:53 -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: Storms: Schultz: Miles He data  12.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"asJlT3.0.Ze3.thSTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25352
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: 
            Re: Schultz: Britz: problems in Miles He data 12.13.98
       Date: 
            Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:13:50 -0600
       From: 
            Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: 
            Energy K. Systems
         To: 
            rmforall earthlink.net
 References: 
            1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ,
15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21
            , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33
, 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ,
            40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ,
52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ,
            58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ,
70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ,
            76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ,
88 , 89 , 90 , 91


Reply by Ed Storms

> Subject: Re: Commensurate helium production in cold fusion
>        Date: 13 Dec 1998 17:45:39 GMT
>        From:  schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
>    Reply-To:  correct address in .sigfile
> Organization:  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
>  Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
>  References:   1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
> 
> britz (britz kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
> 
> : This argument cannot be resolved by mud slinging in this group. The
> : sticking point is, where does the measured helium come from? If Miles
> : et al can document convincingly that whatever helium they measure does
> : not come in as contamination from the air and is, thus, a product of
> the
> : reaction in the cell, then they have a case, whether the amount
> detected
> : is precisely commensurate with some other signature, or only roughly.
> : I'd be happy with an order of magnitude, given the difficulty of
> : measurement. The point is, however, that skeptics are not satisfied
> : that contamination was ruled out. At this point, we cannot get any
> further,
> : until we have new results with better error exclusion. I can't be the
> : only one tired of this "Troll" series of posts.

We all want better data and some is on the way.  However, better data
has been hard to get because general funding is not available. (Skeptics
killed the work being done by Dr. Miles) Objections to the present
claims all sound very reasonable and appear to be based on criteria we
all support.  However, when the data are analyzed by skeptics using
these universal methods, the result always includes a distortion of the
results or a misinterpretation of the experimental procedure, all
designed to disparage the claims. Clearly, a basic belief can always be
supported if one looks hard enough.  Of course, this applies to
believers as well as skeptics. In the case of CANR, the difference
between these two viewpoints is that most skeptics are sure they are
right and most believers only want an opportunity to learn the truth,
either yes or no. In this field, this opportunity has been frequently
denied. This denial is based on the assumption that the experimenter
screwed up in some way, hence is unworthy of additional support.  If
evidence for this screwup can not be found in the paper, various
speculations are proposed. Rather than asking questions, any information
not present in the paper is assumed to be missing because the
experimenter did not have it or was too stupid to consider its
importance. Never do skeptics consider they may be ignorant of
information which a simple question would supply. An arrogance is
implicit in this approach which makes any discussion very unproductive.
The following comments are an example of this problem, as I have noted.

Richard Schultz wrote:
> 
> The problem with their report goes beyond the question of contamination.
> Several problems with the data themselves become obvious, especially
> when you compare the data reported in the 1993 paper with that reported
> in the 1991 paper (J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271-278).  First of
> all, the two papers are reporting the identical data, as a comparison
> of Tables 2 and 3 of the 1991 paper with Tables 1 and 2 of the 1993
> paper immediately shows.  The difference is that the division of mass
> spectrometer peaks into "big," "medium," and "small" is replaced with
> "10^14 atoms He", "10^13 atoms He", "10^12 atoms He." 

Yes, this is the same data with a more qualitative estimation of the
helium appended.  This study was based on the use of glass flasks.  A
later study used metal flasks and a more accurate measurement of helium.
In this case, the helium was measured by the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Amarillo TX, a laboratory which is well known for their ability to
measure helium very accurately even when it is mixed with other gases. I
list the results below in case the data are not easily available to the
readers.

FLASK/CELL, DATE       He,ppb      Power, W
3A, 5/21/93            9.0+-1.1      0.055
4/B, 5/21/93           9.7+-1.1      0.040
1/C, 5/30/93           7.4+-1.1      0.040
2/D, 5/30/93           6.7+-1.1      0.060
1/A, 7/7/93            5.4+-1.5      0.030
2/A, 9/13/94           7.9+-1.7      0.070
3/B, 9/13/94           9.4+-1.8      0.120

In addition, 8 samples gave no excess energy and had an average He
content of 4.5+-0.5 ppb He. This quantity is the effective background
and is well below most values obtained when excess power was measured.
In addition, the variation between these seven measurements is less than
the stated error in each individual measurement. Thus, the estimated
uncertainty is conservative when compared to the random variation based
on an actual measurement.  Only two samples containing cesium produced
heat but no helium in the gas. The amount of helium retained by the
palladium was not measured and is expected to be significant. 

These data are plotted in my review published in the latest issue of
Infinite Energy and are compared to a completely independent study done
at SRI by Ben Bush.  Agreement is well within the stated error. Thus, we
now have a replication of the claim.

>No mention is
> made of any attempt actually to calibrate the mass spectrometer.  As
> far as I can tell, they read their MS results on an analog oscilloscope.
> In the olden days, people would photograph scope traces and publish
> the photographs.  No such data appear in either paper.  Thus, we have
> to take their word for it that the MS really could distinguish D2 from
> He, and that the three sizes of peaks really correspond to changes by
> factors of 10 in size (and that the MS detector responded linearly
> with amount of He, etc.). 

Why speculate? Just ask Miles and you will know.

> Even if you accept their (rather ad hoc)
> "quantitation," there are other problems.  For example, the 1991 paper
> claims that the detectibility limit was about 8 x 10^11 atoms He/sample;
> and Table 1 of that paper reports that one sample showed "more He than
> expected."  In the 1993 paper, the detection limit has become about 2 x
> 10^12 atoms He/sample (although Table 2 still reports some samples as
> having "10^12 atoms He/sample").  And the 1993 paper makes reference to
> a commercial MS that had a detectibility limit an order of magnitude
> higher.  Their  complete lack of quantitation of any of this; their
> failure to calibrate their MS by using known amounts of He (e.g. from a
> "standard leak" which is used to calibrate He leak detectors); their
> apparent failure to determine the true ability to separate D2 from He by
> taking mass spectra of known mixtures; combined to make me suspect the
> MS data altogether.  I'm not saying that they didn't see any He -- only
> that their report doesn't exclude the possibility that their uncertainty
> was a lot bigger than they thought it was.

All of this speculation is based on a study which used glass flasks. 
This was preliminary work which led to the use of metal flasks and the
data listed above.
> 
> When you get to the data reported in Table 2 of the 1993 paper, you
> find that by their own admission, runs that produced the same excess
> power produced He amounts differing by an order of magnitude.  When you
> also consider that their reported excess power varies by a factor of
> less than four, while their reported He production varies by a factor
> of 100, their claims of correlation seem to me to be rather optimistic.

Of course, that is why the later work was done.
> 
> They also left a whopping clue that there may be unexpected errors in
> their calorimetry.  In the 1991 paper, they reported "unexplained
> excess heat effects" with LiOH + H2O.  By 1993, they had explained these
> effects as being due to poor sealing of the cell.  But if the two sets
> of experiments (LiOD/D2O and LiOH/H2O) were done under identical
> conditions, then why could not the same problem have occurred in the
> LiOD/D2O cells? And if they were not, what use was the LiOH/H2O as a
> control?  Note also that in 1993, they were unable to reproduce even the
> LiOD/D2O results with new electrodes.

Some experiments fail for good reason. This does not mean that all other
work is suspect.  On the contrary it shows that the experimenters were
aware of the problem and would be sure future studies would not be
affected. Most samples of Pd do not make excess power for reasons I can
explain if anyone is interested. On the other hand, they obviously found
palladium that worked during the later study. Indeed, one batch
containing various amounts of boron were successful 7 out of 8 times
while other materials had a much lower success rate.  
> 
> So really, the issue is not "is finding He production within an
> order of magnitude evidence for a CF event."  The issue is "given the
> methods they used, would they have been actually able to measure He
> production at that level."  From the data they show, the answer has
> to be that we can't tell if they could or not.  From my perspective,
> that means that they haven't demonstrated the He production, even if
> there was He production in their experiment.

I agree, that is why the later work was done. A summary of the work can
be obtained by ordering NAWCWPNS TP 8302, Anomalous Effects in
Deuterated Systems by M. Miles, B. Bush and K. Johnson, Naval Air
Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA 93555-6100.
> -----
> Richard Schultz                                   schultr mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry                           tel: 972-3-531-8065
> Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel            fax: 972-3-535-1250

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 19:17:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA28434;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:16:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:16:28 -0800
Message-ID: <026201be27d9$2dc7ae00$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:15:27 -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: <"qTZ7l.0.Cy6.CITTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25353
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Come in Horace. This is Earth Calling. :-)

Try 5A - 2Z quarks in ANY NUCLEUS and Z EXTERNAL ELECTRONS.

     2A "UP" or (+)

     2A - Z "DOWN" or (-)

     A - Z  ANTINEUTRINOS

NET:5A - 2Z internal quarks and Z external electrons.

Read up on STRING-SUPERSTRING THEORY where the QUARKS are
considered to be LENGTH-ONLY "STRINGS" or STRING-CIRCLES.

The CLASSICAL (ACCEPTED RADIUS, R = kq^2/E of the ELECTRON
is 2.815E-15 Meters or 2.815 FERMI) the closest an electron
can get to a Group of Quarks COMPRISING a NUCLEUS about
4.5E-18 Meters in diameter, and since the "Strings" Have NO Thickness you
can get several thousand in a very nasrrow space. The deviation from the
average ENERGY/RADIUS is treated as COLOR AND FLAVOR of the QUARKS.

Proton: (1H1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 2 = 3 quarks

    ---> +
    <--- -
    ---> +   net charge +1,  spin 1/2

Neutron: (oN1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 0 = 5 quarks:

     ---> +
     <--- -
     ---> +
     <--- -
     0<---  antineutrino   net charge 0, spin -1/2

Deuteron: (1H2) 5A - 2Z = 10 - 2 = 8 quarks

     ---> +
     <--- -
     ---> +
     <--- -
     ---> +
     <--- -
     ---> +
     ---> 0  antineutrino    net charge +1,  spin 1

These "Current Loops" MAY hold the solution to the ELECTROGRAVITY
FIELD/ANTIGRAVITY, and FORCE FIELDS,also.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 19:31:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00195;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:29:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:29:23 -0800
Message-ID: <3675D7B2.6843 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:29:54 -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: Murray: Storms: 1993 Storms report  12.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AO3y72.0.v2.JUTTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25354
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 14, 1998  Hello all,   I've been studying Edmund Storms,
"Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic
cell using palladium sheet," March, 1993 Fusion Technology, p. 230-245.

Fig. 11, 12, and 16 indicate pretty strong evidence of up to 19.5%
excess heat, ~7.5 W with 38.4 W input power from 2.77 A input current in
70ml of electrolyte, several times between 65 and 401 hours of the run. 
So, the question then must be, what artifact might  create this actual
excess heat?  One of the most probable scenarios would be that the
actual input electric power was greater than measured, due to rapid
fluctuations of resistance, that the power supply could not accurately
track.

On page 234: "Figure 7 shows that the scatter in the apparent excess
power is about +-1 W at a current that deposits 35 W in the cell and +-
0.3 W at low current.  This scatter is caused by local variations in
cell voltage caused by bubble action."  Fig. 7 show about a hundred
points of data, apparent excess power, ranging from +1.6 W  [4.6%] to
-1.2 W, during a run of 1000 minutes, over 16 hours, at 2.8 A on a Pt
cathode.

A more adaquate control run would be for the same 400 hours as the
experimental run, since the electrolyte, the recombiner, and some of the
cell electrical leads all changed significantly in that nearly 17 day 
run.  The same length of run should be tried with an inactive Pd
cathode.  Another important control would be to try Pt and Pd cathodes
with light water, H2O, for 400 hours.

It would perhaps be very illuminating to have a continuous record of the
voltage, resistance, and current fluctuations during the high excess
heat intervals, when 2.8 A input current was maintained during hours 238
to 304 for many continuous intervals of 180 min. [Table III].  From 270
to 285 hours, there are in Fig. 12 about 11 data points at about -.5 W,
while almost simultaneously there are dozens of points far above them at
3.6 W to 7.6 W, with none in between.  From 288 to 300 hours, just
before recombiner failure, there are 4 intermediate points from 2 to 4
W, below the mass of points at 5 to 6 W.

What might the cause be of these negative excess power and reduced
excess power points?  Probably a continuous record of voltage, current,
resistance, and power would indicate the presence or not of a probable
artifact.  Besides fierce bubbling, many momentary shorts might be
occuring across the "9 mm-spacing between the anode and the cathode" [p.
232], if conducting particles, gels, filaments, and whatnot are involved
in the increasingly complex chemistry of the electrolyte.

Another anomaly in the data record is from 397 to 400 hours in Fig. 16:
the excess heat points are, with one minor exception, tightly bunched
together into a single line curve between 5 and 6 W.  The bath
controller failed between 397 and 401 hours, and the anode electrical
connection broke at 401 hours.

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 20:49:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA27565;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:44:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:44:15 -0800
Message-ID: <3675E915.8C4 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:44:05 -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: Blue: Schultz: Storms:  1993 Storms report, Miles He data  12.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g8cH81.0.dk6.VaUTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25355
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Storms: Blue: Murray: 1993 Storms report 12.10.98
  Date:  Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:34:54 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> The difference between the electrolyte calibration and the calibration
> based on Joule heating results mainly from the different voltage drop in
> the leads.  This difference has been reduced in subsequent designs.  A
> problem results only if this error should change, an unlikely event
> because it depends on the wire size.

That isn't exactly what is said in the paper.  There Ed Storms indicates
that the difference involves the thermal conductivity of the electrode
assembly.  In fact I am beginning to wonder if he understands the
problem. Is it just possible that he is saying that his determination of
the electric power input is erroneous, due to voltage drop in the leads?

> In this case, bubble action is different from the suggestion made by
> Blue. The data acquisition system sees a voltage change but the changed
> power is not reflected in the temperature because the thermal inertia of
> the cell is too slow to allow the corresponding temperature change to
> occur. As a result, large, rapid variations are seen in the apparent
> applied power.  If this power change lasted for the 15 min needed for
> the cell to achieve thermal equilibrium, the apparent excess power would
> return to zero as the temperature values adjusted. Therefore, these
> variations have no relevance to evaluating processes which last for
> hours.

This last assertion concerning what has "no relevance" disturbs me.  Are
we supposed to believe that changes in power level that are not tracked
by the calorimeter have "no relevance"?  Let's examine this more
carefully. Suppose we have a step in the input power from "low" to
"high", as in the bimodal excitation.  The data acquisition systems sees
the voltage change and calculates the new power level correctly (more or
less), but the thermometers lag behind and do not indicate the new heat
level very closely until about 12 min later.  If we integrate power in
and power out from the time of the step for as long as you like, there
will remain a difference, i.e. "excess" that does not go away ever.
That energy is in fact, stored within the system as heat capacity
times delta T or as a latent heat.  It cannot be made manifest to
the calorimeter measurement, unless and until the temperature returns
to the initial value as the result of a negative step in the power
input. It is then, we hope,  that the error noted will be compensated
and energy balance restored.

But I can describe circumstances under which the tracking error is not
properly compensated, with the result that a square-wave excitation of
the device will lead to an accumulating error.  For that reason, I
do believe that the details of the time dependence of all measured
parameters should be considered significant.

> >A prudent evaluation would have to consider that a multitude of subtle
> >nonlinear effects are available to create apparent heat excursions as
> >large as 20% at the highest power level used, 38.4 W in the small cell.
> >What is the volume of electrolyte, and the volume of the cell?

> And these nonlinear effects would have come on slowly, last for hours,
> and be invisible to repeated calibration using Joule heating.
> The electrolyte volume is about 70 ml and the total volume is about 120
> ml.

No, all that is required is that the effects differ for the calibrations
using Joule heating, and as noted above, transient behavior may well be
one area where nonlinearities become especially important.

> >The chemistry of the cell and recombiner is constantly changing: p. 232:
> >"Because of chemical interactions of lithium with oxygen in the
> >electrolyte and with carbon in the recombiner, the concentration of
> >lithium in the cell solution slowly decreases as Li2CO3 is formed on the
> >recombiner.  In addition, the solution gradually becomes saturated with
> >CO2."   This implies that the functioning of the recombiner is
> >constantly changing, and, indeed, recombiner failure, as Dick Blue noted
> >weeks ago, occurred after apparent excess heat episodes.
> >How much heat is generated by the oxidation of the recombiner?
>
> Interaction between the electrolyte and the recombiner is too slow to
> measure. It takes weeks for the recombiner to fail and at the end of
> that time most of the 1.1g of carbon was still present, although
> partially covered by a thin later of Li2CO3.
>
> >How much and how quickly do changes in electrolyte conductivity occur?
>
> The resistivity changes by about 20% over the course of an experiment
> lasting weeks. No sudden changes were observed.

So under constant current excitation, the input power level steadily
increases, and the average operating temperture rises.  As I understand
it, a rise in temperature rather directly effects the conductivity of
the cell.  Is that included in the 20% you note or are you comparing
before and after conductivies at a fixed temperature?

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Storms: CF debate 12.8.98
  Date:  Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:42:11 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> This misunderstanding by skeptics results because people use the
> calibration constant to plot the measured values with respect to an
> arbitrary zero when no excess is produced.  A zero value at this point
> is nice, but it is irrelevant to the experiment.  Fortunately, the CANR
> phenomenon takes time to occur, during which time a zero, null condition
> is defined.  The random variation of the signal is also defined during
> this interval.  Then, if one is lucky, the temperature value is found to
> rise above the previously steady value.  The difference between the
> base-line temperature and the new temperature is multiplied by the
> calibration constant to give the magnitude of excess power.  All
> absolute errors in temperature, voltage, current and internal conditions
> cancel provided the values of these quantities remain constant.
> Consequently, only CHANGES in these values are important.  It is
> important to understand this process before attempting to find error.
>
> Let us next discuss each of the suggested errors beginning with #1.
>
> 1. Dick Blue proposes that the DC voltage applied to the cell has rapid
> variations caused by variations in cell resistance.  These rapid
> variations are proposed to be overlooked by the measuring system so that
> more power than expected is actually being applied to the cell.
>
> Answer: A small random noise is, indeed, produced on the voltage
> signal.  However, the value of this noise is small (about 100 mV at the
> highest current in my case), and most of this variation is seen by the
> measuring system. In any case, excess energy would be falsely seen only
> if this noise should suddenly increase by a large amount and this
> increase be missed by the measuring system.  I can not say if this
> effect occurs in other studies, although it seems very unlikely.
> However, it does not occur in my work.

Ed Storms makes this assertion that the voltage noise is only 100 mV,
but when I ask how he determined that, I did not get a very convincing
answer. A DC measurement with a digital voltmeter cannot provide the
information. His data acquisition system, set to do a good bit of
averaging, does not provide the informaton.  I would say this is still
an open question.

> 2. Dick Blue proposes that experimenters pick positive results out of a
> large set of random values, most of which give zero excess energy.  In
> other words, the effect is completely random and the upper tail of a
> Gaussian distribution is being used to demonstrate the effect.
>
> Answer: It is very easy to see when a signal rises out of a background
> of random noise. In my case, this rise has been as high as 7 watts with
> a noise of 0.2 W.  Other people who use smaller samples see a smaller
> signal.  In most cases, their calorimeter has correspondingly less
> random noise, making the effect clearly visible.

For your measurements, we have only one example.  It's a little
difficult to do the statistics on one example.  However, your assertion
that you saw a 7 watt signal over 0.2 watt noise is a gross
misrepresentation of your data.  Even you, in your paper, say the noise
is something like 1 watt, but that is ignoring things like 9% errors in
calibrations, etc., which you document.

> When suitable measurements are made, excess energy is produced above a
> critical average composition and a critical applied current.  This
> relationship is not random, although each experimental set-up will have
> a different critical average composition, and each sample may have a
> different critical current.  The reasons for these differences are now
> understood.

Indeed, it may not be random.  That is why I find it interesting that
the conditions which you suggest are essential for the occurance of the
"effect" are also conditions which push the apparatus to an extreme
operating point -- maximum current for an extended period before
anything happens.  And among things that happen are failure of the
recombiner and changes in the composition of the electrolyte.

> This is not to say that all reported excess energy is real. An
> evaluation needs to be made on a case by case basis.  However, I believe
> a sufficient number of studies show a real effect that general claims
> for anomalous energy production are supported.  These claims are based
> on values which are far outside of random error within individual
> studies.

I can't deal with this sort of assertion unless you will be specific.
Which results are you considering as significant?  If your argument is
based on some sort of averaging of results, you clearly are not doing
a proper average.

> A comparison between many individual studies, some of which were poorly
> done and some of which used palladium of unknown properties, does not
> seem to me to be relevant to the problem. In any case, this approach can
> not be used to prove that the claims are based on a random process
> because the important variables are not held constant between the
> various studies.  Judgement of a random process can only be based on
> data obtained within an individual study, if it is to be obtained at
> all.

A lot is hanging on the supposed properties of palladium, properties
which are never defined to my satisfaction.  Of course, you can always
label any sample that does not show an effect as being "bad".  The
question is whether Ed Storms or anyone can select material that will
have a very high probability for demonstrating the effect.  With only
two samples, we can't really evaluate Ed Storms' success rate.  But with
McKubre, it's a different story.  He processed hundreds or thousands of
palladium samples, hoping to select "good" material, yet I don't get the
impression that he ever enjoyed a high rate of success for his
preselected material. Am I wrong here?

> 3. Dick Blue proposes that claims for helium production are all based on
> air leaking into the apparatus, the helium contained therein (5 ppm)
> being mistaken for anomalous production.
>
> Answer:  Anomalous helium has been detected in the gas by 6 studies and
> in palladium after excess heat production by several more.  Granted,
> numerous replications are not absolute proof, but they help.  Two
> quantitative measurements (Miles and Bush) show a consistent
> relationship between excess power and helium.  Although the errors are
> large, the trend in values is clear and is consistent with a failure to
> see helium when no excess energy was detected in seven samples.
> However, the data do not allow an exact conclusion about the amount of
> energy per helium.  This value can fall between 22 MeV and 2 MeV,
> depending on various assumptions about how much helium remained in the
> palladium and how much emphasis is placed on the various errors.
> Additional work is underway which will reduce this range.

Let me point out a fact that Ed Storms overlooks.  The atmospheric
helium concentration is not uniform over the face of the earth.  It may
well be higher at locations near a significant source of helium.  I saw
truck loads of helium delivered to my former place of employment.  Let
me submit that there may just be locations in East Lansing, MI where the
helium content of t e atmosphere is a bit richer than Ed suggests, and
East Lansing is not all that special in that regard.  Seems to me there
are helium cryostats boiling away in many locations around the country.

As I pointed out, the data regarding supposed correlations between
excess heat and helium production that Ed Storms presented in his review
paper are not really so convincing as Ed would have us believe.  If you
take the plot in his paper and add the prediction for there being only
an incidental relationship, as I did, the fit to the data is not all
that bad.

Although we have assertions that the Miles-Bush gas samples were taken
under conditions that prevent atmospheric contamination, it is clear
that the systems where the gas evolved were not, in fact, sealed in any
real sense. The isolation of the gas to be tested from the atmosphere
simply is not adequate, and I am not aware of any testing to confirm
that contamination was not occuring.

As for other confirming results, such as Arata and Zhang, don't we need
to consider the contradictions?  While Miles and Busch claim to detect
helium in the gas evolved during electrolysis, Arata and Zhang very
specifically assert that they see no helium external to the palladium
until it is heated.  While Miles and Busch assert that there is no
3He produced, Arata and Zhang see significant levels of 3He.  Somebody
does not have it right, and we should stop asserting that results have
been "confirmed" when that is not the case.

Dick Blue

Subject: Re: Schultz: Britz: problems in Miles He data 12.13.98
  Date:  Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:08:43 -0500 (EST)
  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
    To:  rmforall earthlink.net

> Subject: Re: Commensurate helium production in cold fusion
>        Date: 13 Dec 1998 17:45:39 GMT
>        From:  schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
>    Reply-To:  correct address in .sigfile
> Organization:  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
>  Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
>  References:   1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
>
> britz (britz kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
>
> : This argument cannot be resolved by mud slinging in this group. The
> : sticking point is, where does the measured helium come from? If Miles
> : et al can document convincingly that whatever helium they measure does
> : not come in as contamination from the air and is, thus, a product of
> the
> : reaction in the cell, then they have a case, whether the amount
> detected
> : is precisely commensurate with some other signature, or only roughly.
> : I'd be happy with an order of magnitude, given the difficulty of
> : measurement. The point is, however, that skeptics are not satisfied
> : that contamination was ruled out. At this point, we cannot get any
> further,
> : until we have new results with better error exclusion. I can't be the
> : only one tired of this "Troll" series of posts.

> The problem with their report goes beyond the question of contamination.
> Several problems with the data themselves become obvious, especially
> when you compare the data reported in the 1993 paper with that reported
> in the 1991 paper (J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271-278).  First of
> all, the two papers are reporting the identical data, as a comparison
> of Tables 2 and 3 of the 1991 paper with Tables 1 and 2 of the 1993
> paper immediately shows.  The difference is that the division of mass
> spectrometer peaks into "big," "medium," and "small" is replaced with
> "10^14 atoms He", "10^13 atoms He", "10^12 atoms He."  No mention is
> made of any attempt actually to calibrate the mass spectrometer.  As
> far as I can tell, they read their MS results on an analog oscilloscope.
> In the olden days, people would photograph scope traces and publish
> the photographs.  No such data appear in either paper.  Thus, we have
> to take their word for it that the MS really could distinguish D2 from
> He, and that the three sizes of peaks really correspond to changes by
> factors of 10 in size (and that the MS detector responded linearly
> with amount of He, etc.).  Even if you accept their (rather ad hoc)
> "quantitation," there are other problems.  For example, the 1991 paper
> claims that the detectibility limit was about 8 x 10^11 atoms He/sample;
> and Table 1 of that paper reports that one sample showed "more He than
> expected."  In the 1993 paper, the detection limit has become about 2 x
> 10^12 atoms He/sample (although Table 2 still reports some samples as
> having "10^12 atoms He/sample").  And the 1993 paper makes reference to
> a commercial MS that had a detectibility limit an order of magnitude
> higher.  Their  complete lack of quantitation of any of this; their
> failure to calibrate their MS by using known amounts of He (e.g. from a
> "standard leak" which is used to calibrate He leak detectors); their
> apparent failure to determine the true ability to separate D2 from He by
> taking mass spectra of known mixtures; combined to make me suspect the
> MS data altogether.  I'm not saying that they didn't see any He -- only
> that their report doesn't exclude the possibility that their uncertainty
> was a lot bigger than they thought it was.
>
> When you get to the data reported in Table 2 of the 1993 paper, you
> find that by their own admission, runs that produced the same excess
> power produced He amounts differing by an order of magnitude.  When you
> also consider that their reported excess power varies by a factor of
> less than four, while their reported He production varies by a factor
> of 100, their claims of correlation seem to me to be rather optimistic.
>
> They also left a whopping clue that there may be unexpected errors in
> their calorimetry.  In the 1991 paper, they reported "unexplained
> excess heat effects" with LiOH + H2O.  By 1993, they had explained these
> effects as being due to poor sealing of the cell.  But if the two sets
> of experiments (LiOD/D2O and LiOH/H2O) were done under identical
> conditions, then why could not the same problem have occurred in the
> LiOD/D2O cells? And if they were not, what use was the LiOH/H2O as a
> control?  Note also that in 1993, they were unable to reproduce even the
> LiOD/D2O results with new electrodes.
>
> So really, the issue is not "is finding He production within an
> order of magnitude evidence for a CF event."  The issue is "given the
> methods they used, would they have been actually able to measure He
> production at that level."  From the data they show, the answer has
> to be that we can't tell if they could or not.  From my perspective,
> that means that they haven't demonstrated the He production, even if
> there was He production in their experiment.
> -----
> Richard Schultz                                   schultr mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry                           tel: 972-3-531-8065
> Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel            fax: 972-3-535-1250
> -----

I, of course, am in complete agreement.  The entire process of detecting
and quantifying helium using MS is just a bit more complex than one
might suspect.  Without the calibrations with known mixtures, it's
really difficult to say what is going on, paticularly when you realize
that each sample to be tested must first be "processed" to knock down
the deuterium concentration before there could be any hope for finding
the helium. My limited experience with purification of helium samples
prior to testing tells me that this is tricky business.

So if you send a gas stream through a "purifier", such as activated
charcoal at LN temperature, just how does the out flow from the purifier
relate to what went in?   So what does the peak recorded in the MS
actually look like? I find it rather amazing that no peak (or peaks) has
ever been presented, given the obvious questions to be raised about
these measurements.  Now, as Richard Schultz says, in olden times, the
only way to make a record was to photograph a scope trace, but that
isn't likely to be true any more, is it? Somewhere, at some time, there
has to have been a hard copy of the evidence. I can think of only one
reason for not turning that into a figure for publication.  If there is
a single peak at mass four we have a problem, because we don't know
whether it is helium or deuterium or a mixture. Unless both peaks are
present and clearly resolved I would have a problem with the claims. 
Actually I think MS is the wrong analytic technique, entirely.

Dick Blue

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 21:00:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32317;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:58:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:58:04 -0800
Message-ID: <3675EC4C.DD4 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:57:48 -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: Murray: base civil CF debates on Vortex-L  12.14.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UZqCD3.0.tu7.SnUTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25356
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dec. 14, 1998  Hello all,  I have been honored, entertained, informed,
and stimulated to be the facilitator for lengthly, detailed, and civil
debates among Storms, Chubb, Blue, Shanahan, Hansen, and others for the
last four months.  However, it is taking too much of my time and
energy.  Vortex-L is now an attractive forum, since the chat, rant,
wrath, and gossip have been relegated to Vortex-b.  It takes me only a
minute to zip by the dozen or two posts each day to focus on the authors
and topics that I value.  I recommend that those who value these
discussions, which are archived month by month, subscribe to Vortex-L,
as described below, and use the Clipboard function to copy their
messages to sci.physics.fusion, and to my private discussion list of
over 90, using the Reply to All button, under the Message button.  I
have no idea how many of the private list read the messages, but none of
these have requested me to drop them from the list.  I will scan
Vortex-L and sci.physics.fusion, and once a month or so repost any major
items that definitively confirm or disconfirm any results in cold fusion
and new energy.

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html

Vortex-L Discussion Group

Vortex-L subscription instructions:

   To subscribe, send a *blank* message to:
      vortex-L-request eskimo.com
   Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the
header.     No quotes around "subscribe," of course.

   You will get an automatic greeting message in response.  Once
   subscribed, send your email to vortex-L eskimo.com.

   To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to:
       vortex-L-request eskimo.com
   Put the single word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of the
header.    No quotes around "unsubscribe," of course.

   Vortex-L digest mode:

   If you prefer "digest" mode messages, collections of messages up to
   40K total or every 2 days, then subscribe to the vortex-digest
   instead of to vortex-L.  Send a blank message to:
       vortex-digest-request eskimo.com
   Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header.
   Vortex-L and Vortex-digest are two separate lists.  It is possible
   to subscribe to one or the other or both.

 Address Changes:

   If your email address changes, you can email billb eskimo.com to fix
   things.  Or, you can simply send a "subscribe" command while using
   your new account.  When your old account is turned off, the vortex-L
   bounce detector will unsubscribe it.  Or, if you still have access
   to the older account address, you can unsubscribe yourself using
   that address.
************************************************************************
 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.

 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 and you wish to test      
"crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away,    
hop on board!  (more)  (For a good analysis of the negative aspects    
of debunkery, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY at
   http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html)

 3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
    exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  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 entire message should 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
    storms of "thread leakage" between lists 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       ustice team.  ;)  Occasional on-topic
advertizing by long-time         vortex-L users is acceptable.

    - Bill B.  Created and maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at:
billb eskimo.com.      If you are using Lynx, type "c" to email. 

  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. Before you subscribe, please
see the rules below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist
list. There is no   charge, but donations towards expenses are
recommended.

Admin addr: vortex-L-request eskimo.com 
Mail addr: vortex-L eskimo.com 
Digest addr: vortex-digest-request eskimo.com 
Moderator: billb eskimo.com (Bill Beaty) 

William J. Beaty
7040 22nd Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117
206-781-3320 USA

NEW MESSAGE ARCHIVE (on WWW, via eScribe) 

NEW: Vortex-L Chat Area (eScribe) 

VORTEX-L ZIP Archives (large!)

1998

     New WWW Archive (eScribe) 
     Vortex-L current month 
     Vortex-l msgs 11/1/98 - 11/30/98 (1.1M .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 10/1/98 - 10/31/98 (950K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 9/1/98 - 9/30/98 (860K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 8/1/98 - 8/31/98 (840 .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 7/1/98 - 7/31/98 ( 660K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 6/1/98 - 6/30/98 ( 700K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 5/1/98 - 5/31/98 ( 1M .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 4/1/98 - 4/30/98 ( 650K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 3/1/98 - 3/31/98 ( 860K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 2/1/98 - 2/28/98 ( 540K .zip) 
     Vortex-l msgs 1/1/98 - 1/31/98 ( 1meg .zip)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 22:02:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA26980;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:00:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:00:56 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: web page
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 06:00:02 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <367dfa82.203385547 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: <"4vmlv.0.Tb6.NiVTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25357
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

After exchanging a few emails with Prof. Frank DiSalvo of Cornell, I
have decided to withdraw the hypothesis espoused on my web page.
(My understanding of phonon distribution with temperature was wrong).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 22:52:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA10213;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:50:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:50:50 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b29bb165dff5 [208.228.222.26]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:58:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"CMt9q2.0.RV2.ARWTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25358
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:15 PM 12/14/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>Come in Horace. This is Earth Calling. :-)
>
>Try 5A - 2Z quarks in ANY NUCLEUS and Z EXTERNAL ELECTRONS.
>
>     2A "UP" or (+)
>
>     2A - Z "DOWN" or (-)
>
>     A - Z  ANTINEUTRINOS
>
>NET:5A - 2Z internal quarks and Z external electrons.
>
>Read up on STRING-SUPERSTRING THEORY where the QUARKS are
>considered to be LENGTH-ONLY "STRINGS" or STRING-CIRCLES.


Last I heard leptons are not quarks.  Neutrinos are leptons.  Must be some
cheezy new theory you are on to.  8^)


>
>The CLASSICAL (ACCEPTED RADIUS, R = kq^2/E of the ELECTRON
>is 2.815E-15 Meters or 2.815 FERMI)

Accepted by whom and when?  Sounds more like the maximum range of the weak
force.  High energy electrons have been used to image lumpy nucleii.  The
strong and color forces have a range of about 10^-13 cm, which sets the
(maximum momentary) size of the nucleus.


>the closest an electron
>can get to a Group of Quarks COMPRISING a NUCLEUS about
>4.5E-18 Meters in diameter,

Doesn't sound right to me.  How new is this?  The classical radius is just
that - classical.


>and since the "Strings" Have NO Thickness you
>can get several thousand in a very nasrrow space. The deviation from the
>average ENERGY/RADIUS is treated as COLOR AND FLAVOR of the QUARKS.
>
>Proton: (1H1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 2 = 3 quarks
>
>    ---> +
>    <--- -
>    ---> +   net charge +1,  spin 1/2
>
>Neutron: (oN1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 0 = 5 quarks:
>
>     ---> +
>     <--- -
>     ---> +
>     <--- -
>     0<---  antineutrino   net charge 0, spin -1/2
>
>Deuteron: (1H2) 5A - 2Z = 10 - 2 = 8 quarks
>
>     ---> +
>     <--- -
>     ---> +
>     <--- -
>     ---> +
>     <--- -
>     ---> +
>     ---> 0  antineutrino    net charge +1,  spin 1
>
>These "Current Loops" MAY hold the solution to the ELECTROGRAVITY
>FIELD/ANTIGRAVITY, and FORCE FIELDS,also.


I don't have any info on string theory. I take it thet it is just a passing
fancy.  8^)

I take it messenger particles, e.g. strong force carriers (mesons) and
color force carriers (gluons,) are also made up of these these string
loops?  When is a string a (or part of a) quark and when is it a (or part
of a) lepton?

What happens when a string tunnels?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 23:16:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19509;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:14:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:14:16 -0800
Message-ID: <029b01be27fa$63cf7480$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <dalepbigboy juno.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:12:05 -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: <"dvOqa3.0.lm4.7nWTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25359
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: Monday, December 14, 1998 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions

While you're waiting  for the Sun to come back, Horace, these might help
your Polaroids & ICBMs. :-)
It was your idea to live next to the North Pole.

P.C. Davies and J. Brown (eds.), Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? 1992
M.B. Green, J.H. Schwartz and E. Witten , Superstring Theory, 1987
M. Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings, 1987


>At 8:15 PM 12/14/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>Come in Horace. This is Earth Calling. :-)
>>
>>Try 5A - 2Z quarks in ANY NUCLEUS and Z EXTERNAL ELECTRONS.
>>
>>     2A "UP" or (+)
>>
>>     2A - Z "DOWN" or (-)
>>
>>     A - Z  ANTINEUTRINOS
>>
>>NET:5A - 2Z internal quarks and Z external electrons.
>>
>>Read up on STRING-SUPERSTRING THEORY where the QUARKS are
>>considered to be LENGTH-ONLY "STRINGS" or STRING-CIRCLES.
>
>
>Last I heard leptons are not quarks.  Neutrinos are leptons.  Must be some
>cheezy new theory you are on to.  8^)
>
>
>>
>>The CLASSICAL (ACCEPTED RADIUS, R = kq^2/E of the ELECTRON
>>is 2.815E-15 Meters or 2.815 FERMI)
>
>Accepted by whom and when?  Sounds more like the maximum range of the weak
>force.  High energy electrons have been used to image lumpy nucleii.  The
>strong and color forces have a range of about 10^-13 cm, which sets the
>(maximum momentary) size of the nucleus.
>
>
>>the closest an electron
>>can get to a Group of Quarks COMPRISING a NUCLEUS about
>>4.5E-18 Meters in diameter,
>
>Doesn't sound right to me.  How new is this?  The classical radius is just
>that - classical.
>
>
>>and since the "Strings" Have NO Thickness you
>>can get several thousand in a very nasrrow space. The deviation from the
>>average ENERGY/RADIUS is treated as COLOR AND FLAVOR of the QUARKS.
>>
>>Proton: (1H1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 2 = 3 quarks
>>
>>    ---> +
>>    <--- -
>>    ---> +   net charge +1,  spin 1/2
>>
>>Neutron: (oN1) 5A - 2Z = 5 - 0 = 5 quarks:
>>
>>     ---> +
>>     <--- -
>>     ---> +
>>     <--- -
>>     0<---  antineutrino   net charge 0, spin -1/2
>>
>>Deuteron: (1H2) 5A - 2Z = 10 - 2 = 8 quarks
>>
>>     ---> +
>>     <--- -
>>     ---> +
>>     <--- -
>>     ---> +
>>     <--- -
>>     ---> +
>>     ---> 0  antineutrino    net charge +1,  spin 1
>>
>>These "Current Loops" MAY hold the solution to the ELECTROGRAVITY
>>FIELD/ANTIGRAVITY, and FORCE FIELDS,also.
>
>
>I don't have any info on string theory. I take it thet it is just a passing
>fancy.  8^)
>
>I take it messenger particles, e.g. strong force carriers (mesons) and
>color force carriers (gluons,) are also made up of these these string
>loops?  When is a string a (or part of a) quark and when is it a (or part
>of a) lepton?
>
>What happens when a string tunnels?
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 23:33:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24963;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:32:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:32:13 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b29bc1e8c149 [208.228.222.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:39:56 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <dalepbigboy juno.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5hqJK2.0.z56.y1XTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25361
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:12 AM 12/15/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>
>While you're waiting  for the Sun to come back, Horace, these might help
>your Polaroids & ICBMs. :-)
>It was your idea to live next to the North Pole.

Ha - closer to the truth than you may realize - except I would change the
"ICBM" to ABM.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 14 23:33:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24928;
	Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:32:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:32:10 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b29bbb0c249c [208.228.222.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:39:52 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Electron catalyzed CF cell
Resent-Message-ID: <"yX72-.0.Q56.v1XTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25360
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Flame shield on.

One of the problems of a production oriented CF device is disposing of the
reactants and obtaining a sustained operation.  This approach is proposed
assuming that 2 keV or higher electrons are critical to CF, due to their
ability to approach a nucleus and shield it through the coulomb barrier.
It is critical to this design to obtain D2 molecules aligned on end, or H
atoms closely aligned in rows in the direction of electron travel, and with
a high surface density on the anode.  A diffusing medium is proposed for
this purpose. This diffusion medium, at least on the surface, should be al
least mildly conductive to remove the electrons.  H2 gass is diffused
through the diffusion medium, driving out any gas byproducts and presenting
a continuous and dense supply of new targets for electrons from the
cathode.  One possible material for the diffuser is Pd, but other materials
with larger interstitial spaces might be superior.

A major drawback of the idea is the need to pump the vacuum space between
the anode and cathode to recycle the H2 to the back side of the diffusor.
Another drawback is that the success ratio is unknown, so the COP might be
indistinguishable from 1.

One variation of the idea is to apply AC to the electrodes so that ionized
atoms are driven into the target diffusor on alternate cycles.  This would
have the adverse effect of driving reactants, e.g. helium, into the surface
of the diffusor.  The driving voltage of 2 keV is more or less a minimum,
but the device might be much more effective at higher voltages.


                        -------------------
                        |
----       vacuum       :
   /                    :
   \                    :
   /   Hot              :
   \                    :     <-- H2
   /   Filament         :
   \                    :
   /   Cathode          : H2 diffusing anode
   \                    :
----   (~-2 KeV)        :
                        |
                        -------------------

This idea has little chance of working - but it is food for thought.

Flame shield off.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 02:03:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA25054;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:59:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:59:49 -0800
Posted-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:56:12 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <3676325B.A38009BC verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:56:43 +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: "The Secret Life of the Dipole" (eprint: hep-th/9812111)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Ze4l3.0.K76.KCZTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25362
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

hep-th/9812111 (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9812111)

From: "J.S. Anandan" <J.S.Anandan phys.uu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:20:47 GMT   (5kb)

The Secret Life of the Dipole

Author: Jeeva S. Anandan
Comments: 6 pages, latex. A shorter version of this article, but with 
two figures, appeared in Nature, vol. 387, 558-559 (5 June 1997)

   A new force on the magnetic dipole, which exists in the
   presence of both electric and magnetic fields, is described. 
   Its origin due to the `hidden momentum', implications and 
   possible experimental tests are discussed.



Note that J.Anandan had worked with Y. Aharanov [from references]

An other paper on a similar subject was "Cannon for Neutral Particles" 
(eprint: cond-mat/9809103), which I had announced it in september.

Isn't it very interesting? From strong interaction to the levitation. Very basical, even Maxwell eqs. are not needed :)

Could we try it at home?

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 07:59:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11162;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:57:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:57:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981215105746.0084f100 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:57:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Cold fusion information
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qLJz91.0.Jk2.2SeTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25363
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


 The COLD FUSION TIMES web site has now been
updated including the front page of the Winter 1998-99
issue, located at 
URL http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
The Cold Fusion Times was set up to increase education 
about the physics and engineering of cold fusion for 
those interested.

  This issue focuses on nuclear ash and emission studies.
>From the generation of terbium de novo to the use of
heterostructures and palladium oxides.
Impacts of hydride desorption to product characteristics
for both gas loaded and electrolytically loaded nickel 
and palladium systems are discussed.

    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/fusion/index.html

   Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 14:50:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03996;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:49:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:49:43 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981215175116.00b153a0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:51:16 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b296113ddf13 [208.228.222.196]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"U-ITd2.0.H-.5UkTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25364
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:44 PM 12/10/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>Well, you seem to be looking in the right direction, because it seems the
>answer must lie with electron interaction of some kind.
>
>How much of the P - N bond energy is strong force and how much can be
>accounted for by simple dipole attraction? (The neutron and proton are
>magnetic dipoles.)...

   Deuterium exists only as a spin 1 (where the proton and neutron have
their spin aligned).  We had a discussion way back about the fact that if
one of the spins is flipped, then the deuteron falls apart.

   But you still have to get the energy somewhere.  And on that topic,
Frederick's original article looks to me like just one way of stating
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  I prefer to say that if a particle
borrows from Heisenberg's Bank, it is invisible until it finds a source of
energy to repay the loan.  And of course, the more energy borrowed, the
sooner it has to be paid back.

   As near as I can figure, the high probability of stripping comes from
the nature of deuterons--the two particles are relatively far apart, and if
a deuteron bounces off the electric field of another atom, the neutron will
ALWAYS get closer to the nucleus than the proton by more than the average
separation.  (A spring and ball model does not necessarily correspond to
what happens at the atomic level but here it gets pretty close.  Think of
the deuteron as two balls connected by a spring.  As the deuteron is
repelled from the nucleus, only the proton is repelled, so the neutron is
out a the end of the spring, which is stretched by the repulsion.)  If you
use that model you get a much better estimate of inelastic probabilities
than if you treat the deuteron as a ball.


                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 16:32:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA08901;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:30:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:30:45 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981215193027.00848cf0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:30:27 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981215175116.00b153a0 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <v01530500b296113ddf13 [208.228.222.196]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vbf7P3.0.wA2.qylTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25365
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 05:51 PM 12/15/98 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>  If you
>use that model you get a much better estimate of inelastic probabilities
>than if you treat the deuteron as a ball.
>
>
>                                        Robert I. Eachus


  Good points.
  Reminds me of the joke about modeling Secretariat (the horse)
as a sphere.    ;-)X

  Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 16:45:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA13557;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:42:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:42:34 -0800
Message-ID: <3677021B.1B50 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:43:07 -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: Storms: Murray:  1993 Storms report  12.15.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lIRwt2.0.fJ3.v7mTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25366
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject: Re: Murray: Storms: 1993 Storms report 12.14.98
       Date:  Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:52:45 -0600
       From:  Edmund Storms <Storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K. Systems
         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
 
Reply to Rich Murray by Ed Storms

Rich Murray wrote:

> Dec. 14, 1998  Hello all,   I've been studying Edmund Storms,
> "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic
> cell using palladium sheet," March, 1993 Fusion Technology, p. 230-245.
> 
> Fig. 11, 12, and 16 indicate pretty strong evidence of up to 19.5%
> excess heat, ~7.5 W with 38.4 W input power from 2.77 A input current in
> 70ml of electrolyte, several times between 65 and 401 hours of the run.
> So, the question then must be, what artifact might  create this actual
> excess heat?  One of the most probable scenarios would be that the
> actual input electric power was greater than measured, due to rapid
> fluctuations of resistance, that the power supply could not accurately
> track.

When Dick Blue raised this possibility I indicated that this effect was
looked for and was not found. How many more times must I make this
statement?
 
> On page 234: "Figure 7 shows that the scatter in the apparent excess
> power is about +-1 W at a current that deposits 35 W in the cell and +-
> 0.3 W at low current.  This scatter is caused by local variations in
> cell voltage caused by bubble action."  Fig. 7 show about a hundred
> points of data, apparent excess power, ranging from +1.6 W  [4.6%] to
> -1.2 W, during a run of 1000 minutes, over 16 hours, at 2.8 A on a Pt
> cathode.

Granted, points do scatter as indicated.  However, the average of all 
points is essentially zero.  It is the average of many points which
indicates whether excess energy is being produced, not an individual
value.
 
> A more adequate control run would be for the same 400 hours as the
> experimental run, since the electrolyte, the recombiner, and some of the
> cell electrical leads all changed significantly in that nearly 17 day
> run.  The same length of run should be tried with an inactive Pd
> cathode.  Another important control would be to try Pt and Pd cathodes
> with light water, H2O, for 400 hours.

All these suggestions are worthwhile.  However, this work was done over
5 years ago and can not be repeated.  Since then I have done the
suggested studies using similar apparatus. The controls show no
indication of anomalous behavior of this magnitude.
 
> It would perhaps be very illuminating to have a continuous record of the
> voltage, resistance, and current fluctuations during the high excess
> heat intervals, when 2.8 A input current was maintained during hours 238
> to 304 for many continuous intervals of 180 min. [Table III].  From 270
> to 285 hours, there are in Fig. 12 about 11 data points at about -.5 W,
> while almost simultaneously there are dozens of points far above them at
> 3.6 W to 7.6 W, with none in between.  From 288 to 300 hours, just
> before recombiner failure, there are 4 intermediate points from 2 to 4
> W, below the mass of points at 5 to 6 W.

This information was taken and examined, but it became unavailable after
I left LANL.

> What might the cause be of these negative excess power and reduced
> excess power points?  Probably a continuous record of voltage, current,
> resistance, and power would indicate the presence or not of a probable
> artifact.  Besides fierce bubbling, many momentary shorts might be
> occurring across the "9 mm-spacing between the anode and the cathode" [p.
> 232], if conducting particles, gels, filaments, and whatnot are involved
> in the increasingly complex chemistry of the electrolyte.

There was no indication of shorting, and, as I said before, no gels form
in the solution. The negative values are probably caused by changes in
room temperature. This same shift would apply to the high current
conditions where excess energy was being produced, thereby subtracting
apparent excess energy from the plotted values. This being the case, the
actual excess is probably slightly higher than indicated.
 
> Another anomaly in the data record is from 397 to 400 hours in Fig. 16:
> the excess heat points are, with one minor exception, tightly bunched
> together into a single line curve between 5 and 6 W.  The bath
> controller failed between 397 and 401 hours, and the anode electrical
> connection broke at 401 hours.

Once the jacket temperature  dropped, as indicated, the data are
suspect. Therefore, I do not believe the values after 397h.  
 
Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 17:47:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03592;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:44:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:44:57 -0800
Message-ID: <3677100F.5DE0 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:42:39 -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  12.15.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_bQ701.0.yt.O2nTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25367
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 12.14.98
      Date:Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:29:24 -0500
      From: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To: rmforall earthlink.net

[Comments by Rich Murray: I hope you and Dick Blue find it agreeable to
subscribe to Vortex-L, so you can continue this fascinating debate.  I
don't have the expertise to evaluate the Chubb band state theory. 
Scott, are there any theorists at your level who would be willing to
join the debate, offering their assessment of the plausibility and
completeness of your theory?  Are there any readily testable
experimental outcomes, beside deuterium fusion into helium-4?]

>>Scott Chubb response:>
>> The photons transfer momentum over finite distances.  They do not
>> transfer energy.  They are static.
>>
>> This may seem odd, but it actually isn't.  And the reason it isn't is
>> actually based upon the very different physics that is at work in a
>> solid, as opposed to free space.
>>
>> The ordinary Coulomb potential can be viewed as resulting from the
>> exchange of static (i.e., zero frequency) virtual photons, possessing
>> all possible momenta.  However, these "photons" are always "trapped;"
>> i.e., they are only allowed to transfer momenta over finite distances,
>> and it is always necessary for "moving" particles to be involved in
>> order for momenta to be transferred.
>
>Basically this is more "theory" that really has very little information
>content that will clarify the issues under discussion.  If all Scott
>Chubb is describing is a static solid, as the above seems to indicate,
>we are done.  The static solid remaims stable.  There are no
>transistions, and there is no energy release.  

Momentum is transferred to the boundaries of the solid through recoil. 
The mediator of the momentum transfer is the Coulomb interaction.  The
solid is stable.  The reaction is a ground-state to ground-state form of
interaction.  The mediators of the interaction are zero frequency
photons. These are not allowed, they are the "stuff" of solid state
physics.

You come with the idea that there must be "instability" involved.  This
is a preconception.

>As I have said before,
>this is not a reaction theory.  It is a theory of no reactions.

It is a theory of reactions, but it is not a theory of "high energy
reactions."  The Coulomb potential provides a means for this.  In
particular, through the Coulomb potential, in general, an
"action-at-a-distance" form of interaction exists in which momentum can
be transferred, non-locally, without energy being transferred in the
process. In free space, because the particles that are involved always
"accelerate" (in a classical sense), necessarily, radiation "eventually"
accompanies this form of interaction.  (But this radiation can be
immediately absorbed, as well.) In a solid, through coherence, resulting
from periodic order, the ability of the solid to absorb and non-locally
transmit momentum, in an "action-at-a-distance" form of interaction,
through the Coulomb potential, is more dramatic.  It involves "recoil"
in which momentum is transferred non-locally, instantaneously. 
Subsequently, as a result of the momentum transfer, energy is released.


>As Scott plainly states, the zero-energy virtual photons don't transfer any
>energy.  They just hold the lattice together.  

NO!  I never said that.  I said, and have been saying, all along, the
"zero-energy" photons cause the lattice to recoil.  And here, I have
used the general definition:  either the solid, all at once moves; or a
large portion of it moves, or its surface region is merely defined.  The
zero energy photons do not transfer energy, initially, as a consequence,
but they do transfer momentum.  The transfer of momentum is followed by
a transfer of energy.  It occurs non-locally, at the boundaries of the
solid.

>> In the case of a solid, the static Coulomb interaction also is at work.
>> But there are "moving charges" that are capable of receiving and
>> transferring momenta without transferring energy.  These are the
>> "particles" (which are actually stationary waves) that have wave
>> functions that possess Bloch symmetry.
>>
>> Quantum mechanically, of course, these "particles" actually "aren't
>> moving." As I said, they are stationary "waves" in the sense that they
>> are eigenstates of the system and are capable of "resonating" in a
>> coherent fashion in which no energy ("motion") is transferred to them,
>> except at the boundaries of the solid, where periodic order breaks down.
>
>Just who do you think you are addressing?  I have not challenged your
>theory for ion band deuteron states.  I just don't see any connection
>to a nuclear reaction process.  

At the boundaries, energy is released.  Energy release is a
time-dependent process; when instantaneous momentum transfer is
possible, the momentum that gives rise to the energy that one normally
associates with the nuclear reaction, locally, can be transformed to
momentum at a distant point, which gives rise to energy release.  In
other words, I am addressing how energy release can become non-local.  I
would have thought this should be obvious.  But apparently, it is not.

I suggest a simple exercise.  Wherever I use the term zero-energy,
virtual photon in my discussion, replace this term with "Coulomb
Potential."  Also, wherever you envision energy release from a "local"
nuclear reaction, think about the more basic idea of momentum release.
And allow (as a result of the Coulomb potential) for this momentum
release to be non-local.

Possibly, I hope, this construction will help to remove some of your
bias.

>So the solid state physics works.  Can we move on to a discussion of the
>nuclear state physics, which is what does not work as you have claimed.

The comments about non-local momentum release and Coulomb interaction
have been all about nuclear physics, just not the variety that you are
used to thinking about.

>We are not describing a static system.  

The idealization of the static system applies in the bulk.  At the
surfaces, dynamic behavior is at work.

>Deuterons in and helium plus
>energy out has to involve some nuclear dynamics.  If, as I have come
>to suspect, you are not prepared to discuss nuclear dynamics, you have
>absolutely nothing to say about a CANR process.

I certainly am discussing the nuclear dynamics.  If you are unwilling to
accept the fact that momentum transfer through the Coulomb potential can
occur instantaneously without energy transfer and that this has bearing
on the lack of high energy products in the CANR process, your bias
apparently will prevent you  from ever believing that CANR can occur. 
However, nature does show that such transfers of momentum are not only
possible but that in solids, especially at low temperature, they are
quite important.

>> 23.8 MeV/ 10^9 unit cells = .0238 eV ~ minimal excitation of D+-like
>> phonon. This "calculation", which I have cited before, defines the
>> domain size where resonant coherent interaction can occur.
>
>What this proves is that, according to Chubb theory, any nuclear state
>of excitation in a periodic lattice is subject to instant deexcitation
>via a resonant coherent interaction of the type he describes.  

The mode of "instant" de-excitation is through lattice recoil.  When the
energy release per unit cell is smaller than the minimal excitation
energy of any potential forms of excitation within the lattice that can
couple to the de-excitation process, the lattice will recoil.  The
physics behind this estimate  (minimal excitation energy> de-excitation)
is also the basis of lattice recoil in the Mossbauer effect.


It is worthwhile noting that there is a "more universal" aspect of the
underlying physics; i.e., de-excitation is a size dependent feature, and
in principle (as suggested by you), other forms of nuclear reaction
could be subject "instant" de-excitation.  Also, as a consequence, as
you imply in your next comment, in principle, the logic implies that (in
an infinite bulk solid), reversible forms of "nuclear reaction" are
entirely reversible.  In point of fact, very early on, we noted this
fact and discussed this possibility.  We called these "reversible forms"
of reaction, "coalescence fluctuations."  In point of fact, however, in
a finite solid, energy transfer occurs through lattice recoil (which
breaks the time reversal invariance), and these forms of reaction
probably are never observable.

>His division by the number of unit cells can result in a match for any
>nuclear state energy to something appropriate to a lattice phonon
>spectrum.  But there is clearly something wrong here.  If this picture
>were reasonable, we should also consider the time-reversed version, i.e.
>excitation of the nuclear state.  

See last comment.

>What this leads to, I believe, is the
>notion that nuclear excitations are actually in thermal equilibrium with
>the lattice.  

No, time reversal invariance only holds at T=0 in a perfect, infinite
crystal. Even in the idealization of T=0, in a finite crystal, lattice
recoil (using the definition given above) results in energy release and
break-down of time reversibility.  At finite T, disruptions of periodic
order provide additional channels for energy release, which lead to a
further breakdown of reversibility.

>So, if we can input deuterons and output helium, we should
>be able to reverse that process.

See last comment.

>> >It might at any second suddenly collapse into some form of degenerative
>> >decay, the likes of which we have never
>> >seen.
>>
>> The situation is static.  Order must be preserved.  The interaction is
>> coherent.  The transitions are only allowed to be ground state to ground
>> state.  These facts are responsible for the governing physics and the
>> lack of decays that your intuition leads you to conclude should be at
>> work.
>
>What is special about ground states?  

1.) They can not decay into anything else.

2.) When possible energy release (through a nuclear decay, for example)
is initiated from the ground state but the release is smaller than the
minimal amount required to excite anything within the lattice, the
lattice recoils.  It is only from the ground state that such a scenario
can occur since an excited state always may couple to some other state,
leading to de-excitation and the elimination of "recoil."

3.) The ground states preserve periodic order in the bulk; this leads to
a situation involving non-radiative, coherent interaction that can lead
to non-local momentum transfer and energy release at the boundaries of
the solid.

>Where in the lattice have you
>located the intelligence that can recognize a ground state as opposed to
>an excited state?

The excitation/de-excitation process makes this distinction.  This is
because a finite gap exists between the ground state and the first
excited state.  In particular,  when a process in which momentum is
transferred occurs in which the possible accompanying energy release
through de-excitation is smaller than the minimal amount of energy
required (on a per unit cell basis) to excite anything within the solid
having appreciable overlap with the initial and final states involved
with the de-excitation, the momentum transfer is imparted to the solid
as a whole.  This leads to the forms of "recoil" that I have alluded to.

The governing physics is associated with overlap and coherence.  The
ground state is coherent.  Excitations that do not preserve periodic
order automatically break coherence.  Energy release from the coherent
state can be initiated instantaneously (via the Coulomb potential)
through non-local transfers of momentum.

>> We are not dealing with "real photons."  We are dealing with "bound," or
>> "trapped", or "virtual" photons (as in the Coulomb potential).  These
>> are photons whose frequencies are not given by c/wavelength (c=speed of
>> light).
>>
>> >The phase space factor is largest when the number of photons is smallest.
>>  >Why is that not so for this system?  What is it
>> >that tilts the balance in favor of an infinite number of zero-energy
>> >photons?
>>
>> I never said that more than single photon exchange is involved.  This is
>> your conclusion.  In fact, in the dominant channels, single photon
>> exchange is involved, which also the case in the Coulomb potential.
>> However, again, as in the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves
>> virtual photons, each of which possesses vanishing frequency.  Also, as
>> in the Coulomb interaction, the momentum that is transferred can become
>> large.  (In the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves a summation
>> over all momenta; in the resonant coherence from periodic order that
>> occurs in solids, the exchange involves a summation over discrete
>> momenta, each of which equaling hbar x reciprocal lattice vector.)
>
>There are lots of things you have never said.  That is why I keep asking
>questions.  One problem is that you are treating as "static" something
>that must be dynamic.

It need not be dynamic in the bulk, provided the dynamical changes occur
at the boundaries (i.e., in the surface regions) of the solid.

>> What is important to recognize, however, is a very important point
>> concerning the distinction between "virtual" and "real" photons.  When
>> "real" photons are present, the photons are present (i.e., they are
>> observable) in an initial or final state (even when the state is an
>> intermediate state that subsequently decays).  This means an
>> energy/momentum conserving delta function, which gives rise to the phase
>> space factor you are alluding to, is present.  When the photon is always
>> absorbed and transmitted, through a static, Coulombic process, momentum
>> conservation still is present, but the standard, "on mass shell" phase
>> factor that you are alluding to is significantly modified.  In
>> particular, the momentum is transferred to the absorbing particles.
>>
>> Thus, because the virtual photons are "off mass shell,"  the phase space
>> factor  you are accustomed to thinking about is significantly altered.
>> It is not defined by the density of states that applies to photons that
>> "are on mass shell" (i.e. to photons that obey the energy-momentum
>> relationship frequency = c/wavelength).
>
>> Virtual photons do not have a "conventional" phase space factor.  The
>> remnants of this factor are absorbed into other factors associated with
>> the matter field.  Most importantly, virtual photons are exchanged only
>> when there are particles that available to transmit and absorb them.
>> They are always trapped by the environment.  They are the basis of the
>> static Coulomb potential.
>
>Forgive my error.  I thought we were discussing a dynamic nuclear
>reaction process.  Of course, once we learn that I am mistaken in that
>regard, much of what I have been saying does not apply.
>
>> >This, in part, is why I keep coming back to my question about the internal
>> >nuclear wave functions employed in this theory.  On that point I, once
>> again, >feel I am being whipsawed back and forth between two
>> contradictory
>> statements.
>>
>> The behavior of the Coulomb potential in this respect has nothing to do
>> with the nuclear wave functions.
>>
>> >In one presentation, Scott Chubb writes 4 separate position coordinate
>> >vectors, one for each of the four nucleons of a 4He and said, I thought,
>> >that everthing has Bloch symmetry, i.e. any r is periodic mod R.
>>
>> Not true, but irrelevant to the point you raise above-
>>
>> >So I questioned whether it made sense to have neutrons flitting about
>> >over the entire crystal.  The response I get is that of course they
>> >don't do that. Each neutron stays real close to its personal proton just
>> >as I would have guessed.  It is bound into a single potential well and
>> >all the talk of Bloch symmetry of the wave function has vanished!
>>
>> Again, not true: each proton-neutron pair, has Bloch symmetry in the
>> center of mass variable that is appropriate to the pair when it is
>> infinitely separated from the remaining pair.
>
>Once again let me say that we could have saved tons of time if Scott
>Chubb had been more direct and forthcoming about the limited scope of
>this theory. If he will just admit that he has not given any
>consideration to the internal wave function of a deuteron, and is
>ignoring the fact that a deuteron is a composite, we can rather quickly
>demonstrate the inadequacy of his theory.
>

I have considered the internal wave function.  What seems to be not
well-understood by you, I infer from your comment, is the reason why one
of the proton-neutron pair wave functions associated should be treated
as a Bloch state.  (In particular, why should the other pair, not be
treated in this manner.  And why should a proton-neutron pair be treated
this way at all?  Why aren't the individual nucleons in Bloch states? 
Etc.)  In fact, there are reasons, based on the requirements of
Born-Oppenheimer separability, periodic order, and the fact that the
electromagnetic interaction and nuclear potentials must be treated on a
comparable footing (i.e., as if they possess comparable energy scales)
before, during, and after deuteron-deuteron collisions, that are
responsible for our treatment of the nuclear wave function in the manner
that I have described.

>> >You've got to stop doing this sort of nonsense at some point, Scott.
>> >Can't you just say, once and for all, what radial dependence you assume
>> >for the interaction between a proton and a neutron within the deuteron?
>>
>> See last comment.
>
>> >If we can ever get beyond this deception concerning the radial
>> >dependence of nucleon-nucleon potentials, perhaps we can move on to more
>> >advanced topics like the angular momentum of the various nuclear
>> >states.
>>
>> I am not attempting to deceive anyone.  I wish you avoid this kind of
>> terminology.  It would useful, I think, if you would look at my comments
>> about the multipole expansion and separability.  The decay portion of
>> the interaction can not, per se, be isolated from the "collision"
>> portion, I believe, in a manner that makes the nucleon-nucleon potential
>> separable from the electromagnetic portion.  For this reason, it is not
>> clear to me that this particular topic is "advanced."  But it might be
>> useful to explore it more fully.

>Well, let me explain this a bit better.  You have been asserting
>something about coherence of wave functions which, I believe can only be
>properly addressed if we have a complete description of the nuclear
>state.  You, it seems, are not prepared to describe the nuclear state. 
>In that case, I don't believe there is very much your theory can do to
>address the questions relating to coherence as they relate to the
>deuteron - helium transitions.

See last comment, concerning what has been done with regard to the
nuclear wave functions.

An important point that I have not emphasized is that deuteron-helium
transitions, as opposed to the remaining d+d->t+p and d+d->3He+n
reactions, decay by electromagnetic processes.  This is also true in the
CANR process described by us.  In this regard there are two important
points to keep in mind: the rules underlying the purely coherent
interaction, mediated by the Coulomb potential through resonant
coherence from periodic order, require that the strong and
electromagnetic interactions couple in a non-separable way, and that
ground-state to ground-state transitions, only, be allowed. The d+d->t+p
and d+d->3He+n are reactions in which the electromagnetic and strong
interactions effectively are separable; while in the d+d->4He
reaction, this is not the case.  Only the d+d->4He reaction involves a
ground-state to ground-state transition.
  
>> >I want to see you do the angular momentum algebra to get from
>> >two deuterons to one 4He in its ground state.
>>
>> This is done radiatively, through the virtual photon exchange I
>> described in my last message.  I will think more fully about the
>> algebra.
>
>So are you claiming to have worked out the radiative deexcitation via
>virtual photon exchange without having considered the angular momentum
>of these systems?  Pardon me, but there is a problem here.

Of course I worked this out long ago.  In my comment, I was referring to
the fact that I was thinking there would be value in presenting a
detailed description of the relevant algebra.  The coupling, you see, is
different from the one you are accustomed to thinking about, and I was
thinking it might be useful to put it into terms you are accustomed to. 
In the relevant physical situation (which involves band states), you
see, the language is different from what you are used to thinking about.

In particular, there are three initial D nuclear band states involved:

|1,-1>=magnetic spin 1 of first D, magnetic spin -1 on second D

|-1,1>=magnetic spin -1 on first D, magnetic spin 1 on second D

|0,0>=magnetic spin 0 on both D's

The spin wave function that has net spin 0=|0> is

|0>=1/(sqrt(3))[|1,-1>+|-1,1>-|0,0>]

This is the spin wave function (in the "natural") configuration that
couples to the the 4He nucleus.  (By natural, I am referring to the spin
coupling associated with proton-neutron pairs.)

The reason I say that this is not the form that you are accustomed to is
that you probably would prefer to see things represented in terms of the
conventional spin 1/2 spinors associated with the various nucleons.

In point of fact, it serves no purpose to represent things this way
because the relevant wave functions assymptotically (at large D+D
separations) in the initial state are more usefully represented in terms
of wave functions associated with the nuclear D band occupation.  In the
final state 4He configuration, this is also the case.

The key point, in terms of reaction possibilities, is that all that is
required for overlap between the initial and final state to occur is
that the initial state spin function not be orthogonal to |0>.
 
>You will notice the problem, I believe, the very first time you actually
>think about the nuclear states of this system.

As I said, I thought about this along time ago.  But "the problem",
because the situation is quite different from what you are used to, I
suggest is really very different, and not really a "problem," per se, at
all.    The fact that you think it should be "a problem," I would
suggest is a misconception, based on language and bias.  

It would be useful, I think, if you would try to look closely at the
language (and biases) that you have.  I will attempt to do the same,
both with respect to your language, and with respect to mine.  (The
example associated with interchanging Coulomb interaction with "exchange
of zero frequency virtual photons", I suggest, is an example of how
different language can illicit different biases.)

>
>Dick Blue
>

SCOTT CHUBB

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 17:54:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08115;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:53:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:53:17 -0800
Message-ID: <02e901be2896$afe24680$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <dalepbigboy juno.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:51:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"b4mcS.0.f-1.DAnTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25368
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

Snip Robert's  allusion to the high energy Oppenheimer-Phillips Deuteron
Polarization/Neutron Capture Process.

This effect explains how a nucleus can align an incoming
deuteron so that the neutron is captured and the positive
proton portion is expelled. But, these reactions are noted well above the
2.23 Mev neutron binding energy in the deuteron.

However, the 2.23 Mev binding energy if treated as a potential, V = kq/d
where d is the separation distance
between the proton and neutron portions:

d = 9E9*1.6E-19/2.23E6 = 6.457E-16 Meters

This leaves the possibility of a localized "Cluster" of electrons,
q'=(n*1.6E19) causing the stripping, or a close approach of an electron that
shrinks from the 2.81E-15 meter radius to a relativistic radius R' =
Ro/[(E'/Eo)+1]
when V = (kq/d) is calculated for d = 6.457E-16 meters.

Yes, Horace, 2(pi)R' will give you the de Broglie wavelength Lambda'.  :-)

Note that in K-Capture by 4Be7  V = k*4*1.6E19/d, and the
neutrino-antineutrino pair is formed, the electron is "shrunk" and
captured,the neutrino is ejected and the 4Be7 ends up as 3Li7 which now has
2 more quarks than the 4Be7.

As previously stated, short of this step which occurs on occasion in "Cold
Fusion" the Electromagnetic Interaction
can create short-lived (real or virtual) photons/pairs and give Over-Unity
(O-U) results.

Regards,  Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 23:00:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA12401;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:56:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:56:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981216015621.00856170 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 01:56:21 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: schultz: Britz: problems in Miles He data  12.13.98
In-Reply-To: <36754AFA.561F earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nzxRW2.0.h13.gcrTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25369
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


 Vorts:

At 10:29 AM 12/14/98 -0700, Rich Murray wrote:
>Subject: Re: Commensurate helium production in cold fusion
>       Date: 13 Dec 1998 17:45:39 GMT
>       From:  schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
>Organization:  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

>The problem with their report goes beyond the question of contamination.
>Several problems with the data themselves become obvious, especially
>when you compare the data reported in the 1993 paper with that reported
>in the 1991 paper (J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271-278).  First of
>all, the two papers are reporting the identical data, as a comparison
>of Tables 2 and 3 of the 1991 paper with Tables 1 and 2 of the 1993 
>paper immediately shows.  The difference is that the division of mass
>spectrometer peaks into "big," "medium," and "small" is replaced with
>"10^14 atoms He", "10^13 atoms He", "10^12 atoms He."  No mention is
>made of any attempt actually to calibrate the mass spectrometer.  As
>far as I can tell, they read their MS results on an analog oscilloscope.
>In the olden days, people would photograph scope traces and publish
>the photographs.  No such data appear in either paper.  Thus, we have
>to take their word for it that the MS really could distinguish D2 from
>He, and that the three sizes of peaks really correspond to changes by
>factors of 10 in size (and that the MS detector responded linearly
>with amount of He, etc.).  
 .....
>So really, the issue is not "is finding He production within an
>order of magnitude evidence for a CF event."  The issue is "given the
>methods they used, would they have been actually able to measure He
>production at that level."  From the data they show, the answer has
>to be that we can't tell if they could or not.  From my perspective,
>that means that they haven't demonstrated the He production, even if
>there was He production in their experiment.
>-----
>Richard Schultz   schultr mail.biu.ac.il


   Nonsense.

   Mr. Schultz's criticism and comments -- as usual -- are
low wattage, and distorted.  They are as quantitatively flawed
as his repeated bogus claims that myoglobin is a dimer, when
it is a monomer.

  Probably the best response to Mr. Schultz on his assertions
is by Dr. Miles himself, who has kindly given me permission
to share this email regarding Mr. Schultz's comments.

   Those interested in this field should look closely at
paragraph 3, and work out the math for themselves.

     Dr. Mitchell Swartz

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

15 Dec 1998

Dear Mitchell,

Thanks for sending me the critical comments from Richard Schultz regarding
my work.  I don't have the time to engage in endless debates, but I admire
the patience of Scott Chubb and Ed Storms for doing this.  Critics like
Richard Blue, Steve Jones, Lee Hansen, Richard Schultz and others are
absolutely convinced that there is no such phenomena as cold fusion, hence
the only thing left for them in this field is to find errors with the
reports from many laboratories for excess heat, helium, tritium, and
radiation from cold fusion experiments.  I challenge the critics to find any
errors in the report of anomalous radiation by Szpak, Mosier-Boss and Smith
in Physics Letters A, 1996, Vol.210, pp. 382-390.  There are so many
different reports of cold fusion effects that searching for possible errors
will occupy the critics for years.

Answers to most of the comments by Richard Schultz regarding my work can be
found in my reply to Jones and Hansen:  Journal of Physical Chemistry B,
Vol.102, pp. 3642-3646, 1998.  The measurements of helium were performed at
three different laboratories that certainly knew how to distinqish helium
from deuterium.  In fact, each laboratory separated the deuterium from the
helium prior to the gas entering the mass spectrometer.

How does any critic propose to explain the fact that 30 out of 33 of our
heat and helium studies yielded either excess helium when excess power was
measured or no excess helium when no excess power was present.  The
probability of obtaining this result by random errors is about one in a
million.  The helium present in air would have to possess at least the
intelligence of Richard Schultz to know which flasks to contaminate and the
appropriate levels of contamination to yield 10exp11 - 10exp12 atoms of
helium per second per watt of excess power.

The only possible explanation for the critics regarding our work is that Ben
Bush and I committed scientific fraud.  They are all welcome to believe
this, but I know that it is not true.  The anomalous excess heat effect does
indeed produce helium-4 in cold fusion experiments.

Sincerely,
Dr. Melvin H. Miles





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 15 23:13:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA18809;
	Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:12:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:12:34 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b29d027f4375 [208.228.222.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:20:20 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Resent-Message-ID: <"PtDUk3.0.ob4.YrrTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25370
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:51 PM 12/15/98, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>At 03:44 PM 12/10/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>Well, you seem to be looking in the right direction, because it seems the
>>answer must lie with electron interaction of some kind.
>>
>>How much of the P - N bond energy is strong force and how much can be
>>accounted for by simple dipole attraction? (The neutron and proton are
>>magnetic dipoles.)...
>
>   Deuterium exists only as a spin 1 (where the proton and neutron have
>their spin aligned).  We had a discussion way back about the fact that if
>one of the spins is flipped, then the deuteron falls apart.


That means that more than half the 2.2 MeV bond energy is dipole
attraction, or about 1.1 MeV.  Add to that the possibility of taking the
neutron's intrinsic 1.2 MeV and the bond energy is exceeded (don't forget
that if a double light dineutron (or a pair of light neutrons)is formed the
neutron's 0.7 MeV electron does not have to escape, thus making its full
1.2 MeV available for bond breaking.  If the neutron bond (proton <->
electron) energy can be made available, then you do not have to flip the
dipoles to break the bond.  It is only necessary to overlap either the
neutron or the proton waveform with a counteracting dipole waveform (which
is not excluded by the Pauli exclusion principle.)


>
>   But you still have to get the energy somewhere.  And on that topic,
>Frederick's original article looks to me like just one way of stating
>Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  I prefer to say that if a particle
>borrows from Heisenberg's Bank, it is invisible until it finds a source of
>energy to repay the loan.  And of course, the more energy borrowed, the
>sooner it has to be paid back.
>
>   As near as I can figure, the high probability of stripping comes from
>the nature of deuterons--the two particles are relatively far apart, and if
>a deuteron bounces off the electric field of another atom, the neutron will
>ALWAYS get closer to the nucleus than the proton by more than the average
>separation.

The collision still must provide sufficient energy to break the bond. This
does not begin to provide an explanation for 20 keV collisions breaking a
2.2 MeV bond.


>(A spring and ball model does not necessarily correspond to
>what happens at the atomic level but here it gets pretty close.  Think of
>the deuteron as two balls connected by a spring.

So far, this two ball concept, separate triads, has been an essential
ingredient for all the whacky ideas proposed.


>As the deuteron is
>repelled from the nucleus, only the proton is repelled, so the neutron is
>out a the end of the spring, which is stretched by the repulsion.)  If you
>use that model you get a much better estimate of inelastic probabilities
>than if you treat the deuteron as a ball.

Again, this just can not account for breaking a 2.2 MeV bond with a 20 keV
collision.

However, I see no reason to actually have to break the bond to at least
partially explain LENR, CF.   The shielding effect of a colliding small
wavelength electron does, in my opinion, fit the bill, at least in part,
for explaining LENR.  Mizuno points out: "Compared to many other reactions
that have been proposed, this one [d + e- -> 2n + neutrinos] is markedly
better at explaining the observed experimental results." ["Nuclear
Transmutation, The Reality of Cold Fusion", Tadahiko Mizuno, Infinite
Energy Press, p. 99] (My copy just arrived.)  I think a light neutron pair
(just a D with small wavelength overlapping electron), a neutron source
lacking energy, goes even further than a femtosecond lifetime dinutron nn
toward explaining LENR results without characteristic energetic byproducts.
Fred Sparber pointed out this advantage to a ligth neutron when initiating
this discussion.  The shielded deuteron explanation I suggested provides
the eqivalent of a low energy neutron pair without the need for any initial
nuclear reactions at all.  This even works to explain protium reactions by
form:

   p + e- -> n*


There is not even any need to borrow energy to make this shielding event
happen.  The deuteron target is ideal, being of opposite charge, so there
is even no need for close alignment of the incoming electron, even if it is
a 20 keV electron.  The electron is truly a "magic bullet" for this kind of
shielding event.  The difficult thing is getting energetic electons in the
lattice to trigger the events.  A highly energetic nuclear fission reaction
will generate lots of 10 keV or more electrons in the immediate vicinity by
disruption from the fission products.  There is a possibility of a chain
reaction involving only light neutrons or dineutrons, and electrons.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 03:39:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA08065;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:38:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:38:45 -0800
Message-ID: <034801be28e8$80700020$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <dalepbigboy juno.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:37:00 -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: <"Zpw031.0.xz1.5lvTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25371
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

Snip Good Stuff.
>
>The collision still must provide sufficient energy to >break the bond.
>This does not begin to provide an explanation for 20 Kev
>collisions breaking a 2.2 Mev bond.
>
Precisely. This is where Superstring Theory shows that
"electromagnet flywheel" type interaction between quarks (leptons can be
quarks in the nucleus)can exchange angular momentum or spin;
mass*velocity*radius (mvr) the same as engaging a stationary flywheel with
one that is in rotation.
Assuming velocity v = c, as constant, then as mass/energy decreases, r
increases or vice versa as charge C*V remains constant and is invariant,
spin also remains constant.

>From this the 2.2 Mev is accounted for by the loss of mass
by one or both of the resulting neutrons. 2.2 Mev worth of mass out of more
than 938 or 1876 Mev would hardly be detectable (since you can't directly
weigh neutrons anyhow). Subsequent absorption of these Light Neutrons by
a heavier nucleus would restore their mass/energy with a slight change in
capture gamma emission.

Based on this conjecture, it seems logical that the deuteron/proton can also
donate/accept small increments of mass/energy also, which could account for
O-U heat effects
in agitated hydrogenous systems where the electrons can readily "access" the
nucleus.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 06:54:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24956;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:52:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:52:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216095446.01010100 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:54:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b29d027f4375 [208.228.222.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qf8u1.0.o56.5byTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25372
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:20 PM 12/15/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>At 5:51 PM 12/15/98, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>>At 03:44 PM 12/10/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>>Well, you seem to be looking in the right direction, because it seems the
>>>answer must lie with electron interaction of some kind.
>>>
>>>How much of the P - N bond energy is strong force and how much can be
>>>accounted for by simple dipole attraction? (The neutron and proton are
>>>magnetic dipoles.)...
>>
>>   Deuterium exists only as a spin 1 (where the proton and neutron have
>>their spin aligned).  We had a discussion way back about the fact that if
>>one of the spins is flipped, then the deuteron falls apart.
>
>
>That means that more than half the 2.2 MeV bond energy is dipole
>attraction, or about 1.1 MeV.  Add to that the possibility of taking the
>neutron's intrinsic 1.2 MeV and the bond energy is exceeded (don't forget
>that if a double light dineutron (or a pair of light neutrons)is formed the
>neutron's 0.7 MeV electron does not have to escape, thus making its full
>1.2 MeV available for bond breaking.  If the neutron bond (proton <->
>electron) energy can be made available, then you do not have to flip the
>dipoles to break the bond.  It is only necessary to overlap either the
>neutron or the proton waveform with a counteracting dipole waveform (which
>is not excluded by the Pauli exclusion principle.)
>
>
>>
>>   But you still have to get the energy somewhere.  And on that topic,
>>Frederick's original article looks to me like just one way of stating
>>Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  I prefer to say that if a particle
>>borrows from Heisenberg's Bank, it is invisible until it finds a source of
>>energy to repay the loan.  And of course, the more energy borrowed, the
>>sooner it has to be paid back.
>>
>>   As near as I can figure, the high probability of stripping comes from
>>the nature of deuterons--the two particles are relatively far apart, and if
>>a deuteron bounces off the electric field of another atom, the neutron will
>>ALWAYS get closer to the nucleus than the proton by more than the average
>>separation.
>
>The collision still must provide sufficient energy to break the bond. This
>does not begin to provide an explanation for 20 keV collisions breaking a
>2.2 MeV bond.
>
>
>>(A spring and ball model does not necessarily correspond to
>>what happens at the atomic level but here it gets pretty close.  Think of
>>the deuteron as two balls connected by a spring.
>
>So far, this two ball concept, separate triads, has been an essential
>ingredient for all the whacky ideas proposed.
>
>
>>As the deuteron is
>>repelled from the nucleus, only the proton is repelled, so the neutron is
>>out a the end of the spring, which is stretched by the repulsion.)  If you
>>use that model you get a much better estimate of inelastic probabilities
>>than if you treat the deuteron as a ball.
>
>Again, this just can not account for breaking a 2.2 MeV bond with a 20 keV
>collision.
>
>However, I see no reason to actually have to break the bond to at least
>partially explain LENR, CF.   The shielding effect of a colliding small
>wavelength electron does, in my opinion, fit the bill, at least in part,
>for explaining LENR.  Mizuno points out: "Compared to many other reactions
>that have been proposed, this one [d + e- -> 2n + neutrinos] is markedly
>better at explaining the observed experimental results." ["Nuclear
>Transmutation, The Reality of Cold Fusion", Tadahiko Mizuno, Infinite
>Energy Press, p. 99] (My copy just arrived.)  I think a light neutron pair
>(just a D with small wavelength overlapping electron), a neutron source
>lacking energy, goes even further than a femtosecond lifetime dinutron nn
>toward explaining LENR results without characteristic energetic byproducts.
>Fred Sparber pointed out this advantage to a ligth neutron when initiating
>this discussion.  The shielded deuteron explanation I suggested provides
>the eqivalent of a low energy neutron pair without the need for any initial
>nuclear reactions at all.  This even works to explain protium reactions by
>form:
>
>   p + e- -> n*
>
>
>There is not even any need to borrow energy to make this shielding event
>happen.  The deuteron target is ideal, being of opposite charge, so there
>is even no need for close alignment of the incoming electron, even if it is
>a 20 keV electron.  The electron is truly a "magic bullet" for this kind of
>shielding event.  The difficult thing is getting energetic electons in the
>lattice to trigger the events.  A highly energetic nuclear fission reaction
>will generate lots of 10 keV or more electrons in the immediate vicinity by
>disruption from the fission products.  There is a possibility of a chain
>reaction involving only light neutrons or dineutrons, and electrons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          
>
>
>
>

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 07:11:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03314;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:10:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:10:44 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216101237.01019c40 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:12:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
In-Reply-To: <367586d9.173768247 24.192.1.20>
References: <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
 <v01530500b29b22224605 [208.228.222.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IasQz2.0.hp.pryTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25373
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:48 PM 12/14/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:46:03 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>[snip]
>>less than 10 keV.  *Something* must kick the neutron loose.
>>
>[snip]
>I was under the impression that stripping never results in two free
>particles. I.e. it only ever happens when either the proton or the
>neutron is absorbed by another nucleus. In either case the absorbtion
>of either provides more than enough energy for the breakup of the
>deuteron.
>Is this wrong?
 
    If it is wrong, then stripping would violate conservation of energy.

    Note that stripping as a net source of energy can not be ruled out, if
the reaction probabilities can be made high enough.  (Actually much of the
work in this area involves neutron breeding, and I suspect that a correctly
designed target could reach breakeven or better.  However, and it is a big
however, don't try this at home kiddies.  Even a below breakeven level of
neutron flux can easily result in Dead Scientist syndrome.  Also this is an
area where research can be considered de novo classified.)

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 07:36:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA13132;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:33:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:33:41 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b29d7ebbbaba [208.228.222.131]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:41:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
Cc: <dalepbigboy juno.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"XD6q6.0.2D3.KBzTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25374
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:37 AM 12/16/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>Snip Good Stuff.
>>
>>The collision still must provide sufficient energy to >break the bond.
>>This does not begin to provide an explanation for 20 Kev
>>collisions breaking a 2.2 Mev bond.
>>
>Precisely. This is where Superstring Theory shows that
>"electromagnet flywheel" type interaction between quarks (leptons can be
>quarks in the nucleus)can exchange angular momentum or spin;
>mass*velocity*radius (mvr) the same as engaging a stationary flywheel with
>one that is in rotation.
>Assuming velocity v = c, as constant, then as mass/energy decreases, r
>increases or vice versa as charge C*V remains constant and is invariant,
>spin also remains constant.
>
>From this the 2.2 Mev is accounted for by the loss of mass
>by one or both of the resulting neutrons. 2.2 Mev worth of mass out of more
>than 938 or 1876 Mev would hardly be detectable (since you can't directly
>weigh neutrons anyhow). Subsequent absorption of these Light Neutrons by
>a heavier nucleus would restore their mass/energy with a slight change in
>capture gamma emission.
>
>Based on this conjecture, it seems logical that the deuteron/proton can also
>donate/accept small increments of mass/energy also, which could account for
>O-U heat effects
>in agitated hydrogenous systems where the electrons can readily "access" the
>nucleus.
>
>Regards,    Frederick


There may be a mechanism for the electron to extract ZPE.  The low radius
energetic electron (around 20 keV) approaches the nucleus close enough that
tunneling into the nucleus becomes a high probability.  This tunneling has
the effect of forcing radiation due to the sudden displacement of the
electron and its field, thus reducing its kinetic energy.  This tunneling
will be repeated until into and out of the nucleus will repeat until the
energy dwindles to the point the electron is trapped.  However, the
electron, when in the close vicinity to the nucleus, maintains the kinetic
energy gained by the trip into the nucleus - it is excited to the ~0.5 MeV
level when in the vicinity of the nucleus.  Assuming a weak reaction does
not occur, and the radiation is over 20 keV, the electron is now in an
unusual circumstance - electrostaically bound to the nucleus, without
enough energy to escape, but too big to bind to the nucleus.  The more it
radiates, the bigger it gets.   Eventually the electron waveform, due to
its energy being radiated, is big enough that the elecrostatic attraction
between it and the nucleus is again small. In effect, ZPE has pumped it up
to a larger size - permitting the electron to esacape the nucleus with a
low energy - that energy probably coming from a collsion of the now lightly
bound pseudo-atom with another atom.

This explanation might go some ways in accounting for (1) a longer that
expected shielding time induced by 20 keV electrons (2) LENR reactions due
to the highly reduced radius of the pseudo-atom permitting nucleii to get
close enough to tunnel to each other with good probability, such reactions
being intitated by cosmic ray excititation of lattice electrons, but
continued by chain reaction, (3) the effects discovered experimentally by
Blacklight power based on a flawed model of the hydrogen atom (the low
energy state hydrogen would only exist very temporarily, unlike the BPP
modle howeing a stable atom,) (4) the results of Kamada et al, showing that
energetic electrons could induce nuclear reactions in hydrogen adsorbed in
Al, (4) the results of Kasagi et al showing that nuclear reactions are
induced by the bombardment of deuterated Ti, (5) The results of Claytor et
al showing D + D fusion occuring in the vicintity of a high voltage thin
wire (6) the predominant energy source of LENR having no corresponding
nuclear signature - the source of such energy being the ZPE borrowing
achieved by the electron.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 08:11:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26480;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:09:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:09:31 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216111125.00b196f0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:11:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and O-U Reactions
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b29b4d0a5ab4 [208.228.222.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"C9kWp1.0.gT6.wizTs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25375
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:21 PM 12/14/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>If that is the case then the creation of the proposed pseudo-atom by the
>inbound electron of sufficient energy might help provide an explanation for
>ordinary stripping.  The neutron isn't really stripped at all.  If this is
>the case, though, there should be a high incidence of *both* the neutron
>and proton being absorbed, and that is not the case, is it?
 
    "But the dog did nothing in the night..."  (from Silver Blaze by A.
Conan Doyle)

    Seriously, if both particles are absorbed, the energy and momentum must
go somewhere.  But how can you tell if the loose proton in a d,p reaction
or the loose neutron in a d,n event is the one that was originally in the
deuteron.

    I guess you could have a spin aligned target hit with (oppositely) spin
aligned deuterons, and look at the spin distribution of the particles
emitted.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 11:13:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA29367;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:10:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:10:26 -0800
Message-ID: <039b01be2927$933770a0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: The Second Superstring Revolution (http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/str
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:08:53 -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_0394_01BE28EC.D97D1A00"
Resent-Message-ID: <"AJK813.0.nA7.XM0Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25377
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_0394_01BE28EC.D97D1A00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Prof. John H. Schwarz, Cal. Tech. Ed Witten was featured on the PBS "Stephen
Hawkings' Universe" last night.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/intro.html


------=_NextPart_000_0394_01BE28EC.D97D1A00
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Second Superstring Revolution.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Second Superstring Revolution.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/intro.html
Modified=80ADDBA02629BE01B6

------=_NextPart_000_0394_01BE28EC.D97D1A00--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 11:13:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA29321;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:10:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:10:19 -0800
Message-ID: <039a01be2927$91be8c40$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: SuperString Theory Linx (http://gentrotsky.simplenet.com/string.html)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:01:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE28EB.C6E9F6C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2XOag3.0.3A7.RM0Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25376
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_006B_01BE28EB.C6E9F6C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A good site out of about 260 web sites on Superstring Theory. I can't find
what "Institute For Advanced Studies" Ed Witten works for.   FJS

http://gentrotsky.simplenet.com/string.html

------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE28EB.C6E9F6C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="SuperString Theory Linx.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="SuperString Theory Linx.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://gentrotsky.simplenet.com/string.html
Modified=205564172629BE01FE

------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE28EB.C6E9F6C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 11:27:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04853;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:21:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:21:02 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981216132029.00913430 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:20:29 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: neutrons in cloud chamber
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kxd583.0.ZB1.UW0Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25378
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I've got a physics apparatus book that shows a large alcohol-vapor cloud
chamber with a very long straight track that they say was made by a
neutron.  Can anyone explain how a neutron would make a track in a cloud
chamber?  I thought you had to create ions....DOES a neutron create ions as
it passes through gas?  Is there something about alcohol (i.e. hydrogen
content) besides just providing the condensable vapor?

Thanks.



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 Dec 16 12:17:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26648;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:14:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:14:38 -0800
Message-ID: <03c101be2930$8e6b0560$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:13:21 -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: <"y4_J93.0.HW6.jI1Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25379
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:24 PM
Subject: neutrons in cloud chamber

"Protons and Neutrons may react with atoms in the vapor giving rise to
charged particles, and so are indirectly recorded.  In the cloud chamber the
tracks are formed by condensation of moisture from the supersaturated vapor
on ion trails produced by the particles."

Quote of the Day:

"Girls are a different kind of Humans"   Grandson Josef, aged 6, after a bad
day at Kindergarten.    :-)

Regards,   Frederick


>I've got a physics apparatus book that shows a large alcohol-vapor cloud
>chamber with a very long straight track that they say was made by a
>neutron.  Can anyone explain how a neutron would make a track in a cloud
>chamber?  I thought you had to create ions....DOES a neutron create ions as
>it passes through gas?  Is there something about alcohol (i.e. hydrogen
>content) besides just providing the condensable vapor?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>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 Dec 16 13:21:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20505;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:16:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:16:02 -0800
Message-ID: <03dc01be2939$201256a0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:14:14 -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: <"KCY6U1.0.305.FC2Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25380
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott:

I looked up the ionization energy for ethanol(C2H5OH,10.49 ev),methanol
(CH3OH, 10.84 ev), H2O & D2O 12.6 ev.

A neutron moving at about 4.5E4 meters/sec will do the
10.49 ev ionization.

I guess this is part of the reason neutrons can cause the "Dead Scientist"
syndrome.   :-(

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 14:15:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15909;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:13:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:13:18 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3678232C.1950 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:16:28 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
References: <3.0.1.32.19981216132029.00913430 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nDKYW3.0.Vu3.-13Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25381
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 16, 1998

Vortex,

Neutrons does not make tracks directly. It is detected only after a
collision with another particle sets up a bounced charged particle, so
sez Brittanica. And 'cloud chamber' websites only talks of charged
particles, directly or indirectly formed. So the apparatus book did not
explain the track enough.

Always fascinated with radioactivity. Made a cloud chamber in youth
myself (late 40's), found that the pumping action was not fast enough
for the thing to work right. It was an experience though to torch form
electrodes into Pyrex tubing then attaching them onto a large round
Pyrex beaker serving as the chamber. Probably not enough voltage and the
alcohol was dilute. No intrested friends around to discuss the thing.
Looked nice. Never got around to making it work though I thought the
idea was sound.

-ak-

Scott Little wrote:
> 
> I've got a physics apparatus book that shows a large alcohol-vapor cloud chamber with a very long straight track that they say was made by a neutron.  Can anyone explain how a neutron would make a track in a  cloud chamber?  I thought you had to create 
ions....DOES a neutron create ions as it passes through gas?  Is there something about alcohol (i.e. hydrogen content) besides just providing the condensable  vapor?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 14:43:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25044;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:40:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:40:33 -0800
Message-ID: <03ec01be2944$efb3b740$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <little eden.com>
Subject: Fw: neutrons in cloud chamber
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:39:20 -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: <"ybpvB.0.376.WR3Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25382
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brodzinski, Ronald L <ron.brodzinski pnl.gov>
To: 'Frederick J Sparber' <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: neutrons in cloud chamber


>Two possibilities:
>
>1) the book is wrong and it wasn't caused by a neutron, or
>
>2) the track isn't caused by a neutron, but by a recoiling proton following
>collision with a fast neutron.
>
>Neutrons themselves do not directly create ionization, and do not make
tracks in
>cloud chambers.  A key observation is whether the track starts and stops in
open
>space, or if it starts at some source material.
>
>Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick J Sparber [SMTP:fjsparb sprintmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:00 PM
> To: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov
> Subject: Fw: neutrons in cloud chamber
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:24 PM
> Subject: neutrons in cloud chamber
>
>
> >I've got a physics apparatus book that shows a large alcohol-vapor
>cloud
> >chamber with a very long straight track that they say was made by a
> >neutron.  Can anyone explain how a neutron would make a track in a
>cloud
> >chamber?  I thought you had to create ions....DOES a neutron create
>ions as
> >it passes through gas?  Is there something about alcohol (i.e. hydrogen
> >content) besides just providing the condensable vapor?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >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 Dec 16 14:51:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27974;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:46:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:46:16 -0800
Message-ID: <03fc01be2945$bd11dfa0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Off Topic
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:45:06 -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: <"SHwHW3.0._q6.uW3Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25383
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

BTW Folks, Iraq is under Attack. All Tv nets are covering it in Baghdad.

FJS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 19:06:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20300;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <367874D3.4DF56239 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:04:52 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Shanahan: Storms: artifacts in McKubre data 12.16.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------6306719EFF34DCB832F411D5"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3UC7L.0.4z4.mI7Us" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25384
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.
--------------6306719EFF34DCB832F411D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:  Re: Storms, McKubre and giving up
   Date:    Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:52 -0400 (EDT)
   From:    Kirk.Shanahan srs.gov
     To:      rmforall earthlink.net

To:  Rich Murray (and Ed Storms and Mike McKubre indirectly)
From:  Kirk Shanahan

Rich,

I am sorry to hear that you are finding it too time consuming to
continue the
service you have provided for us 'list members' so far.  But, I'm not
surprised.
Almost anything having to do with Internet discussions takes up a lot of
time!
Thanks for your efforts to date.  I also have effectively run out of
time to
continue this debate.

The discussion with Ed Storms has clearly reached the point of
diminished
returns.  In his last post of 12/8/98 he makes several statements that I

violently disagree with, to the point where it is obvious that further
discussion is useless.  I would just like to make three points.

First, the claim of 'excess' energy has buried in it the exacting
requirement
for knowledge of where 'zero' excess energy is on the scale of the
experiment.
You cannot claim 'excess' ,unless you know where unity is.  In his first
few
paragraphs, Ed seems to bounce back and forth between believing this is
true and not.  Unfortunately, there isn't a choice.

Second, I found Dr. Storms section headed "WHAT ARE SOME REAL
ERRORS?" amazing.  Apparently, only recognized and accounted for errors
are real? The real point  here being that I disagree with Dr. Storms
dismissal of the other points of  discussion.

Third, I have been involved for a long time in analyzing chemical
process
behaviors.  The idea that the baseline noise determined to be
characteristic of
a process defines all the possible errors is fallacious.  In fact,
baseline
shifts such as are observed in 'excess' energy plots are typical in many

chemical process, and simply reflect the intrusion of an unrecognized
and
therefore uncontrolled factor.  Many researchers assume all errors are
random.
Unfortunately, this is often not true.  In fact in the arena of
Statistical
Quality and Process Control, a system that is not under statistical
control
almost never shows a random error distribution.  Instead, the process
moves
between several nominal states, and the distributions produced are
decidedly
non-random.

Since I am dropping out, I would like to let people know how my look at
the
McKubre data has gone to date.  I did something interesting the other
day.  The
McKubre report has claims of excess heat in two runs, both in the four
run "M"
series.  These are mass flow calorimetry experiments, and two inlet and
outlet
temperatures are measured.  I have looked at the stability of the
_difference_
between the two inlet temps and the two outlet temps.  (This is not the
difference used in the mass flow calorimetry equation
Pout=Cp*dm/dt*delT.  I
assume in that equation the average of the two outlet temps and inlet
temps is
subtracted.)  The key to calorimetry is to measure the required
temperatures
accurately, meaning that you must show that you have no inherent
inaccuracies in your technique.

When I examined the M1 run data from starting point through 7:56 AM of
3/18/94,  I found that the inlet temperature difference on the whole had
a constant value, with two exceptions.  At the very beginning of the
data set, there were two step changes in dT from ~.103 to ~.112 to
~.107.  I believe that the first 27 hours of data, which includes these
changes is not counted by McKubre, as there seems to be a 27 hour offset
in my data compared to his figures.  So this initial  shifting may not
be important.  However, at about 180 hours (my scale) a 'noise  burst'
appears and lasts until about 193 hrs.  The dT values spike from about
.08 to .12, with a 'visual' average about .105 to .115 degrees.

The output dT shows a similar noise period there, but it also shows a
lot of
other deviations.  The most interesting are during the calibration
period of
87-136 hours.  The output dT shows a correlated decrease with input
power
level.  The maximal effect is about -.015 degrees.

Even more interesting is a massive step output drop in dT of .086
degrees C at
~337 hrs.  It slowly recovers to a net drop of .07 over about 3-4 hrs.
Then at
~362 hrs it again spikes negative in response to an input power shift
due to
cessation of electrolysis.  At ~370 hrs, all input power is cut and the
dT jumps
back up with a positive spike that settles out at the original level
after a few
hours.  This step function shifting occurs during the claimed 'excess
heat'
event.  There are several other minor shifts noted thoughout the entire
period
of the run I have examined.

The step drop of .086 degrees actually passed through zero.  Thus, the
effect on
the average temp isn't as straightforward as changes that don't do
that.  In
fact, the average output temp would be about the same on either side of
the
transition, as the initial dT was about +.04, and was ~-.04 after.

I thought this was somewhat unusual, so I looked at the M2 run, which
was a
non-excess heat producer.  I only examined the first 600 hours or so.
The input
dT showed no spikes or shifts, but did show a slow decrease over time.
It started at about .099, and at about 555 hrs was ~.093 degrees.  The
output dT
plot has several shifts in it that seem mainly to correlate to power
changes in
the cell.  Most are positive shifts, but one does first go positive
relative to
baseline, then goes negative.  The maximum span in that deviation is
about .01
degrees.  here are a few other features that could be discussed, but I
will skip
them.  (And, this all the analysis I have done so far.  Not a lot, but
enough
for me.)

Output power is roughly calculated by Cp*dm/dt*delT.  A .08 degree shift
in the
output dT for example should produce a .04 shift in the average output T
and
thus a delT of .04 if no input shift is involved.  If Cp is 4.184
J/g*deg, dm/dt
is 1 gram/sec, and delT is .04, we have an apparent excess heat signal
of  4.184* 1 * .04 * 1000 = 167 mW.  The excess heat claimed in M1 is
140 mW.
Having  observed shifts of this magnitude, I hope this illustrates that
what seem to be thermal inhomogeneities in the calorimeter could cause
signals that are within the same order of magnitude as the claimed
excess heats.

Am I saying that the correlation is perfect and that all excess heat
events can
be explained away?  No. I haven't analyzed the data well enough to claim
that.
However, it certainly discourages me from further work to find that
experimental
artifacts were unmentioned in the report, of sufficient magnitude to
cause
concern, and do occur in concert with at least one of the claimed
events.

I also acknowledge there are many other things going on in the data that
make
interpretation quite difficult.  For example, I asked for Dr. McKubre's
calibration algorithm because I am unable to get the output power to
match the
input power during the calibration period with the general description
published
in the report.  I end up with differences on the order of the excess
heat
signals again, and it seems to me the calibration is non-linear and not
very
straightforward.

While it was a major step forward for Dr. McKubre to have published all
his
data, a significant fraction of the _method_ is the data analysis
protocols.
Without a clear description of those as well, we are more or less still
unable
to give unreserved support to the CF interpretation.  It is truly
unfortunate
that EPRI wants $10K for the report, because I believe this means noone
will
ever look at it.

Again, at this point I will not be continuing the discussion, it simply
isn't
worth my time.  I also will not be signing back onto Vortex.  I tried
that route
for awhile and found the environment to be so biased that rational
discussions
were not possible.  The real venue that should be used for this is
sci.physics.fusion.  Unfortunately, most of the people doing the 'work'
don't respond there, so that is out too (they also weren't on Vortex
either...).
I guess the only saving grace is that I haven't found anything that
would cause
me to lose sleep over whether CF is real or not, so discontinuing
discussion is
not a problem.

Happy Holidays,
Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}



--------------6306719EFF34DCB832F411D5
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------6306719EFF34DCB832F411D5--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 20:01:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA13913;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:58:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:58:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3678817A.C7778678 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:58:52 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Blue: Chubb: band state theory  12.16.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------78B78020BF04F2EF739AB782"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z-GuE3.0.GP3.z58Us" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25385
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.
--------------78B78020BF04F2EF739AB782
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:  Re: Chubb: Blue: band state theory 12.15.98
   Date:   Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:54:16 -0500 (EST)
   From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
     To:     rmforall earthlink.net

Blue response to Chubb

 > >Basically this is more "theory" that really has very little
information
> >content that will clarify the issues under discussion.  If all Scott
> >Chubb is describing is a static solid, as the above seems to
indicate,
> >we are done.  The static solid remaims stable.  There are no
> >transistions, and there is no energy release.
>
> Momentum is transferred to the boundaries of the solid through recoil.

> The mediator of the momentum transfer is the Coulomb interaction.  The

> solid is stable.  The reaction is a ground-state to ground-state form
of
> interaction.  The mediators of the interaction are zero frequency
> photons. These are not allowed, they are the "stuff" of solid state
> physics.

So according to you, "momentum is transferred to the boundaries of the
solid through recoil."  Sounds reasonable, within limits, but the clear
requirement is that we have some momentum.  If a nucleus emits a gamma
ray or a nucleon, there will be recoil momentum to be accounted for.
But
in the total absence of any emission for the nucleus or indeed the
lattice,
how can we possibly have a recoil?  Does your theory not conserve
momentum?
It is important to note that you assert a recoil involving perhaps 10^11

mass units and kinetic energy of about 23 MeV.  Now tell us what
balances
that momentum vector.

> You come with the idea that there must be "instability" involved.
This
> is a preconception.

Yes, I had the preconception that we were discussing a theory for a
nuclear
reaction process.  Sorry.

> >As I have said before,
> >this is not a reaction theory.  It is a theory of no reactions.
>
> It is a theory of reactions, but it is not a theory of "high energy
> reactions."  The Coulomb potential provides a means for this.  In
> particular, through the Coulomb potential, in general, an
> "action-at-a-distance" form of interaction exists in which momentum
can
> be transferred, non-locally, without energy being transferred in the
> process. In free space, because the particles that are involved always

> "accelerate" (in a classical sense), necessarily, radiation
"eventually"
> accompanies this form of interaction.  (But this radiation can be
> immediately absorbed, as well.) In a solid, through coherence,
resulting
> from periodic order, the ability of the solid to absorb and
non-locally
> transmit momentum, in an "action-at-a-distance" form of interaction,
> through the Coulomb potential, is more dramatic.  It involves "recoil"

> in which momentum is transferred non-locally, instantaneously.
> Subsequently, as a result of the momentum transfer, energy is
released.
> So how many examples are there for this actually occurring for the
energy

>
> NO!  I never said that.  I said, and have been saying, all along, the
> "zero-energy" photons cause the lattice to recoil.  And here, I have
> used the general definition:  either the solid, all at once moves; or
a
> large portion of it moves, or its surface region is merely defined.
The
> zero energy photons do not transfer energy, initially, as a
consequence,
> but they do transfer momentum.  The transfer of momentum is followed
by
> a transfer of energy.  It occurs non-locally, at the boundaries of the

> solid.

So we have "zero-energy" photons available to transfer momentum to the
lattice, should we actually have some momentum to transfer.  Actually,
all you are saying, I gather, is that the static Coulomb interaction
binds
the solid lattice together such that it can recoil as a whole, provided
the strength of that binding is sufficient.  Let us consider tapping a
solid with a hammer.  As long as the hammer blows are light, the solid
recoils as a whole, but what happens if I strike much harder?  I think
we all know the answer.

> >> In the case of a solid, the static Coulomb interaction also is at
work.
> >> But there are "moving charges" that are capable of receiving and
> >> transferring momenta without transferring energy.  These are the
> >> "particles" (which are actually stationary waves) that have wave
> >> functions that possess Bloch symmetry.
> >>
> >> Quantum mechanically, of course, these "particles" actually "aren't

> >> moving." As I said, they are stationary "waves" in the sense that
they
> >> are eigenstates of the system and are capable of "resonating" in a
> >> coherent fashion in which no energy ("motion") is transferred to
them,
> >> except at the boundaries of the solid, where periodic order breaks
down.
> >
> >Just who do you think you are addressing?  I have not challenged your

> >theory for ion band deuteron states.  I just don't see any connection

> >to a nuclear reaction process.
>
> At the boundaries, energy is released.  Energy release is a
> time-dependent process; when instantaneous momentum transfer is
> possible, the momentum that gives rise to the energy that one normally

> associates with the nuclear reaction, locally, can be transformed to
> momentum at a distant point, which gives rise to energy release.  In
> other words, I am addressing how energy release can become non-local.
I
> would have thought this should be obvious.  But apparently, it is not.

Obvious in what sense?  The concept of lattice recoil is one which has
some
obvious limitations, which I have not seen you address.  I suggest that
it should be obvious to you that you need to justify your assertions
about
lattice recoil, because it obviously does not occur under absolutely
every
condition.

> I suggest a simple exercise.  Wherever I use the term zero-energy,
> virtual photon in my discussion, replace this term with "Coulomb
> Potential."  Also, wherever you envision energy release from a "local"

> nuclear reaction, think about the more basic idea of momentum release.

> And allow (as a result of the Coulomb potential) for this momentum
> release to be non-local.

I have completed the suggested exercise.  I acknowledge that the lattice

is bound together by the Coulomb potential and that the solid thus
formed
may recoil as a whole, provided the required recoil conserves momentum
and
that the elastic limit of the crystal is not exceeded.

> Possibly, I hope, this construction will help to remove some of your
> bias.
>
> >So the solid state physics works.  Can we move on to a discussion of
the
> >nuclear state physics, which is what does not work as you have
claimed.
>
> The comments about non-local momentum release and Coulomb interaction
> have been all about nuclear physics, just not the variety that you are

> used to thinking about.
>
> >We are not describing a static system.
>
> The idealization of the static system applies in the bulk.  At the
> surfaces, dynamic behavior is at work.

Ah yes, the dynamics is at the surface where your theory does not
venture.
It's an old theatrical device where all the action that is too difficult

to stage takes place off stage.

> >Deuterons in and helium plus
> >energy out has to involve some nuclear dynamics.  If, as I have come
> >to suspect, you are not prepared to discuss nuclear dynamics, you
have
> >absolutely nothing to say about a CANR process.
>
> I certainly am discussing the nuclear dynamics.  If you are unwilling
to
> accept the fact that momentum transfer through the Coulomb potential
can
> occur instantaneously without energy transfer and that this has
bearing
> on the lack of high energy products in the CANR process, your bias
> apparently will prevent you  from ever believing that CANR can occur.
> However, nature does show that such transfers of momentum are not only

> possible but that in solids, especially at low temperature, they are
> quite important.
>
> >> 23.8 MeV/ 10^9 unit cells = .0238 eV ~ minimal excitation of
D+-like
> >> phonon. This "calculation", which I have cited before, defines the
> >> domain size where resonant coherent interaction can occur.
> >
> >What this proves is that, according to Chubb theory, any nuclear
state
> >of excitation in a periodic lattice is subject to instant
deexcitation
> >via a resonant coherent interaction of the type he describes.
>
> The mode of "instant" de-excitation is through lattice recoil.  When
the
> energy release per unit cell is smaller than the minimal excitation
> energy of any potential forms of excitation within the lattice that
can
> couple to the de-excitation process, the lattice will recoil.  The
> physics behind this estimate  (minimal excitation energy>
de-excitation)
> is also the basis of lattice recoil in the Mossbauer effect.
>
>
> It is worthwhile noting that there is a "more universal" aspect of the

> underlying physics; i.e., de-excitation is a size dependent feature,
and
> in principle (as suggested by you), other forms of nuclear reaction
> could be subject "instant" de-excitation.  Also, as a consequence, as
> you imply in your next comment, in principle, the logic implies that
(in
> an infinite bulk solid), reversible forms of "nuclear reaction" are
> entirely reversible.  In point of fact, very early on, we noted this
> fact and discussed this possibility.  We called these "reversible
forms"
> of reaction, "coalescence fluctuations."  In point of fact, however,
in
> a finite solid, energy transfer occurs through lattice recoil (which
> breaks the time reversal invariance), and these forms of reaction
> probably are never observable.
>
> >His division by the number of unit cells can result in a match for
any
> >nuclear state energy to something appropriate to a lattice phonon
> >spectrum.  But there is clearly something wrong here.  If this
picture
> >were reasonable, we should also consider the time-reversed version,
i.e.
> >excitation of the nuclear state.
>
> See last comment.
>
> >What this leads to, I believe, is the
> >notion that nuclear excitations are actually in thermal equilibrium
with
> >the lattice.
>
> No, time reversal invariance only holds at T=0 in a perfect, infinite
> crystal. Even in the idealization of T=0, in a finite crystal, lattice

> recoil (using the definition given above) results in energy release
and
> break-down of time reversibility.  At finite T, disruptions of
periodic
> order provide additional channels for energy release, which lead to a
> further breakdown of reversibility.

It is important to note what accounts for the break-down of time
reversibility.
And further to note that once that comes into the play, the Chubb
assertion
that he is describing a "static" system goes out the window!

> >So, if we can input deuterons and output helium, we should
> >be able to reverse that process.
>
> See last comment.

Indeed, we cannot reverse the process because the system is not static.
Something leaves that does not come back.

> >> >It might at any second suddenly collapse into some form of
degenerative
> >> >decay, the likes of which we have never
> >> >seen.
> >>
> >> The situation is static.  Order must be preserved.  The interaction
is
> >> coherent.  The transitions are only allowed to be ground state to
ground
> >> state.  These facts are responsible for the governing physics and
the
> >> lack of decays that your intuition leads you to conclude should be
at
> >> work.

You're complete wrong about my intuition.  It leads me to conclude, in
agreement
with you, that the system you describe is static and unchanging.

> >What is special about ground states?
>
> 1.) They can not decay into anything else.
>
> 2.) When possible energy release (through a nuclear decay, for
example)
> is initiated from the ground state but the release is smaller than the

> minimal amount required to excite anything within the lattice, the
> lattice recoils.  It is only from the ground state that such a
scenario
> can occur since an excited state always may couple to some other
state,
> leading to de-excitation and the elimination of "recoil."

Now this is a real puzzler for me.  We need not consider any states
other
than the ground state, because there is insufficient energy available to

excite anything in the lattice.  If we consider atomic excitations as
well
as nuclear excitations, that really puts a hard limit on the available
energy.  I am not sure "cold fusion" can be shoehorned into this domain.

The main problem I am having, however, is that we really have two ground

states to consider, and one of them is about 23 MeV above the other!  So

how do we maintain the requirement that all energy releases be below
the very low level that Chubb theory requires?

> 3.) The ground states preserve periodic order in the bulk; this leads
to
> a situation involving non-radiative, coherent interaction that can
lead
> to non-local momentum transfer and energy release at the boundaries of

> the solid.
>
> >Where in the lattice have you
> >located the intelligence that can recognize a ground state as opposed
to
> >an excited state?
>
> The excitation/de-excitation process makes this distinction.  This is
> because a finite gap exists between the ground state and the first
> excited state.  In particular,  when a process in which momentum is
> transferred occurs in which the possible accompanying energy release
> through de-excitation is smaller than the minimal amount of energy
> required (on a per unit cell basis) to excite anything within the
solid
> having appreciable overlap with the initial and final states involved
> with the de-excitation, the momentum transfer is imparted to the solid

> as a whole.  This leads to the forms of "recoil" that I have alluded
to.

So the intelligence lies with the process you assume.  Question is what
prevents some other process from occurring?

> The governing physics is associated with overlap and coherence.  The
> ground state is coherent.  Excitations that do not preserve periodic
> order automatically break coherence.  Energy release from the coherent

> state can be initiated instantaneously (via the Coulomb potential)
> through non-local transfers of momentum.

I understand this all comes as a package.  If you have the overlap and
coherence you assume, you may get the result that order is preserved,
but if something else has already disrupted that order, the outcome then

need not be so restricted.  What I have been suggesting is that
disruption
of the order is really such a trivial matter, that it makes little sense
to
assume that the process is dominated by your "order-preserving"
interaction.
Proof that there are such disruptions is clearly indicated by your
acknowledgement that the lattice is finite and imperfect and at finite
temperature.  And as we noted there actually must be some relaxation
time
for the decay of the deuteron ion band state.

> >> We are not dealing with "real photons."  We are dealing with
"bound,"
or
> >> "trapped", or "virtual" photons (as in the Coulomb potential).
These
> >> are photons whose frequencies are not given by c/wavelength
(c=speed
of
> >> light).
> >>
> >> >The phase space factor is largest when the number of photons is
smallest.
> >>  >Why is that not so for this system?  What is it
> >> >that tilts the balance in favor of an infinite number of
zero-energy
> >> >photons?
> >>
> >> I never said that more than single photon exchange is involved.
This is
> >> your conclusion.  In fact, in the dominant channels, single photon
> >> exchange is involved, which also the case in the Coulomb potential.

> >> However, again, as in the Coulomb interaction, the exchange
involves
> >> virtual photons, each of which possesses vanishing frequency.
Also, as
> >> in the Coulomb interaction, the momentum that is transferred can
become
> >> large.  (In the Coulomb interaction, the exchange involves a
summation
> >> over all momenta; in the resonant coherence from periodic order
that
> >> occurs in solids, the exchange involves a summation over discrete
> >> momenta, each of which equaling hbar x reciprocal lattice vector.)
> >
> >There are lots of things you have never said.  That is why I keep
asking
> >questions.  One problem is that you are treating as "static"
something
> >that must be dynamic.
>
> It need not be dynamic in the bulk, provided the dynamical changes
occur
> at the boundaries (i.e., in the surface regions) of the solid.

So the dynamics are all off stage, out of range for your theory.

> >> What is important to recognize, however, is a very important point
> >> concerning the distinction between "virtual" and "real" photons.
When
> >> "real" photons are present, the photons are present (i.e., they are

> >> observable) in an initial or final state (even when the state is an

> >> intermediate state that subsequently decays).  This means an
> >> energy/momentum conserving delta function, which gives rise to the
phase
> >> space factor you are alluding to, is present.  When the photon is
always
> >> absorbed and transmitted, through a static, Coulombic process,
momentum
> >> conservation still is present, but the standard, "on mass shell"
phase
> >> factor that you are alluding to is significantly modified.  In
> >> particular, the momentum is transferred to the absorbing particles.

> >>
> >> Thus, because the virtual photons are "off mass shell,"  the phase
space
> >> factor  you are accustomed to thinking about is significantly
altered.
> >> It is not defined by the density of states that applies to photons
that
> >> "are on mass shell" (i.e. to photons that obey the energy-momentum
> >> relationship frequency = c/wavelength).
> >
> >> Virtual photons do not have a "conventional" phase space factor.
The
> >> remnants of this factor are absorbed into other factors associated
with
> >> the matter field.  Most importantly, virtual photons are exchanged
only
> >> when there are particles that available to transmit and absorb
them.
> >> They are always trapped by the environment.  They are the basis of
the
> >> static Coulomb potential.
> >
> >Forgive my error.  I thought we were discussing a dynamic nuclear
> >reaction process.  Of course, once we learn that I am mistaken in
that
> >regard, much of what I have been saying does not apply.
> >
> >> >This, in part, is why I keep coming back to my question about the
internal

> >> >nuclear wave functions employed in this theory.  On that point I,
once
> >> again, >feel I am being whipsawed back and forth between two
> >> contradictory
> >> statements.
> >>
> >> The behavior of the Coulomb potential in this respect has nothing
to do
> >> with the nuclear wave functions.

I agree your theory has little to do with nuclear wave funcitons. > >>

> >> >In one presentation, Scott Chubb writes 4 separate position
coordinate
> >> >vectors, one for each of the four nucleons of a 4He and said, I
thought,
> >> >that everthing has Bloch symmetry, i.e. any r is periodic mod R.
> >>
> >> Not true, but irrelevant to the point you raise above-
> >>
> >> >So I questioned whether it made sense to have neutrons flitting
about
> >> >over the entire crystal.  The response I get is that of course
they
> >> >don't do that. Each neutron stays real close to its personal
proton just
> >> >as I would have guessed.  It is bound into a single potential well
and
> >> >all the talk of Bloch symmetry of the wave function has vanished!
> >>
> >> Again, not true: each proton-neutron pair, has Bloch symmetry in
the
> >> center of mass variable that is appropriate to the pair when it is
> >> infinitely separated from the remaining pair.

It has been a long struggle, but at last it is clear that Scott Chubb is

considering only a pair-wise nuclear interaction -- one deuteron
interacting
with another deuteron.  Now he has to show us, I believe, that there is
a
very large overlap between a two-deuteron state and the ground state of
4He.  Has he done that?

> I have considered the internal wave function.  What seems to be not
> well-understood by you, I infer from your comment, is the reason why
one
> of the proton-neutron pair wave functions associated should be treated

> as a Bloch state.  (In particular, why should the other pair, not be
> treated in this manner.  And why should a proton-neutron pair be
treated
> this way at all?  Why aren't the individual nucleons in Bloch states?
> Etc.)  In fact, there are reasons, based on the requirements of
> Born-Oppenheimer separability, periodic order, and the fact that the
> electromagnetic interaction and nuclear potentials must be treated on
a
> comparable footing (i.e., as if they possess comparable energy scales)

> before, during, and after deuteron-deuteron collisions, that are
> responsible for our treatment of the nuclear wave function in the
manner
> that I have described.

Well, if you ever described your assumed nuclear wave function, I missed
it.
But I think we are about to get to that, if I read you right.

> >> I am not attempting to deceive anyone.  I wish you avoid this kind
of
> >> terminology.  It would useful, I think, if you would look at my
comments
> >> about the multipole expansion and separability.  The decay portion
of
> >> the interaction can not, per se, be isolated from the "collision"
> >> portion, I believe, in a manner that makes the nucleon-nucleon
potential
> >> separable from the electromagnetic portion.  For this reason, it is
not
> >> clear to me that this particular topic is "advanced."  But it might
be
> >> useful to explore it more fully.

To rephrase this into the usual nuclear jargon, I think what you are
attempting to describe is a direct reaction.

  >Well, let me explain this a bit better.  You have been asserting

> >something about coherence of wave functions which, I believe can only
be
> >properly addressed if we have a complete description of the nuclear
> >state.  You, it seems, are not prepared to describe the nuclear
state.
> >In that case, I don't believe there is very much your theory can do
to
> >address the questions relating to coherence as they relate to the
> >deuteron - helium transitions.
>
> See last comment, concerning what has been done with regard to the
> nuclear wave functions.
>
> An important point that I have not emphasized is that deuteron-helium
> transitions, as opposed to the remaining d+d->t+p and d+d->3He+n
> reactions, decay by electromagnetic processes.  This is also true in
the
> CANR process described by us.  In this regard there are two important
> points to keep in mind: the rules underlying the purely coherent
> interaction, mediated by the Coulomb potential through resonant
> coherence from periodic order, require that the strong and
> electromagnetic interactions couple in a non-separable way, and that
> ground-state to ground-state transitions, only, be allowed. The
d+d->t+p
> and d+d->3He+n are reactions in which the electromagnetic and strong
> interactions effectively are separable; while in the d+d->4He
> reaction, this is not the case.  Only the d+d->4He reaction involves a

> ground-state to ground-state transition.
>
> >> >I want to see you do the angular momentum algebra to get from
> >> >two deuterons to one 4He in its ground state.
> >>
> >> This is done radiatively, through the virtual photon exchange I
> >> described in my last message.  I will think more fully about the
> >> algebra.
> >
> >So are you claiming to have worked out the radiative deexcitation via

> >virtual photon exchange without having considered the angular
momentum
> >of these systems?  Pardon me, but there is a problem here.
>
> Of course I worked this out long ago.  In my comment, I was referring
to
> the fact that I was thinking there would be value in presenting a
> detailed description of the relevant algebra.  The coupling, you see,
is
> different from the one you are accustomed to thinking about, and I was

> thinking it might be useful to put it into terms you are accustomed
to.
> In the relevant physical situation (which involves band states), you
> see, the language is different from what you are used to thinking
about.

If you were perhaps less concerned about my accustomed thought patterns
and
simply made your case in some detail, we could cover more ground.  If
you
would adopt the usual language employed in nuclear physics discussions,
that
would also help.  Otherwise, it continues to be difficult to see what
you are
up to, so that it can be given a meaningful evaluation.  If you don't
know
the nuclear jargon, it is unlikely that you know the nuclear physics.

> In particular, there are three initial D nuclear band states involved:

>
> |1,-1>=magnetic spin 1 of first D, magnetic spin -1 on second D
>
> |-1,1>=magnetic spin -1 on first D, magnetic spin 1 on second D
>
> |0,0>=magnetic spin 0 on both D's
>
> The spin wave function that has net spin 0=|0> is
>
> |0>=1/(sqrt(3))[|1,-1>+|-1,1>-|0,0>]
>
> This is the spin wave function (in the "natural") configuration that
> couples to the the 4He nucleus.  (By natural, I am referring to the
spin
> coupling associated with proton-neutron pairs.)
>
> The reason I say that this is not the form that you are accustomed to
is
> that you probably would prefer to see things represented in terms of
the
> conventional spin 1/2 spinors associated with the various nucleons.

Again, please do not concern yourself with what I may or may not be
accustomed
to.  In this case you are wrong.  If had declared that you consider only

the two-deuteron configuration in modling the 4He ground state, I would
immediately see that the "conventional spin 1/2 spinors" are not in
play.
As it happens I am familiar with the spin couplings of a two-deuteron
state.
That is why I ask to see that you, too, are familiar with this.

> In point of fact, it serves no purpose to represent things this way
> because the relevant wave functions assymptotically (at large D+D
> separations) in the initial state are more usefully represented in
terms
> of wave functions associated with the nuclear D band occupation.  In
the
> final state 4He configuration, this is also the case.

Wait a minute here.  What is your 4He ground state, if it involves only
assymptotic wave functions at large D-D separaton?  That cannot possibly

be the wave function for the kind of 4He I use to inflate balloons!
And it is certainly not the wave function for the stuff that Ed Storms
claims is detected as a product of a CANR reaction.  Are you perhaps
confusing the 0+ excited state of 4He with the 0+ ground state?
How do you know which one you have?

> The key point, in terms of reaction possibilities, is that all that is

> required for overlap between the initial and final state to occur is
> that the initial state spin function not be orthogonal to |0>.
>
> >You will notice the problem, I believe, the very first time you
actually
> >think about the nuclear states of this system.

Is that correct?  Don't you also have to assert that your initial state
must be orthogonal to the other possible spin couplings?

> As I said, I thought about this along time ago.  But "the problem",
> because the situation is quite different from what you are used to, I
> suggest is really very different, and not really a "problem," per se,
at
> all.    The fact that you think it should be "a problem," I would
> suggest is a misconception, based on language and bias.
>
> It would be useful, I think, if you would try to look closely at the
> language (and biases) that you have.  I will attempt to do the same,
> both with respect to your language, and with respect to mine.  (The
> example associated with interchanging Coulomb interaction with
"exchange
> of zero frequency virtual photons", I suggest, is an example of how
> different language can elicit different biases.)

Scott Chubb, you will never convince me by telling me I am too stupid to

understand just what a profound thinker you are.  My biases are clearly
evident. I have done experimental nuclear physics.  I have investigated
two-deuteron systems, even in solid lattices!  And I understand just how

unlikely it is that a solid lattice of any sort will do more that
perturb
a nuclear process slightly.

I find it interesting that you, too, mention the Moessbauer effect as
an example of a similar phenomenon to what you have been describing.
I therefore offer a little exercise for you.  Please calculate the
energy transfered by lattice recoil for absolutely the highest energy
Moessbauer transition ever observed.  Then explain why there is
generally
some decays that do not Moessbauer decay in those very same lattice
systems under the very same conditions.

Dick Blue




--------------78B78020BF04F2EF739AB782
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------78B78020BF04F2EF739AB782--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 16 22:54:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA02712;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:52:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:52:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3678AA46.E7305C51 earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:52:54 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Stenger: CF as pseudoscience 1996 
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------3C36C11E9DFBFCCE49B9189B"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YQ7Wd2.0.Ig.LeAUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25386
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.
--------------3C36C11E9DFBFCCE49B9189B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cold.txt

--------------3C36C11E9DFBFCCE49B9189B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1;
 name="cold.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="cold.txt"

ESP and Cold Fusion
Parallels in Pseudoscience
Victor J. Stenger

The Utopian Quests
By the late nineteenth century, science was well
established in the public mind as the primary method by
which useful knowledge of the material universe is
obtained.  Surely, it was thought, if science can discover
cathode rays and radio waves, then it should easily
authenticate a phenomenon that is far more widely
experienced: the supernatural power of the human mind.  
Non-physical, "psychic" energy appeared to be
everywhere, as an integral part of human experience. 
Indeed, psychic forces are seemingly built into the cores,
the souls, of each of us. It should be just a matter of
securing the evidence with the hard cement of scientific
procedure.  At least this was the view of many Victorian
scientists, and so was begun a program to verify psychic
phenomena scientifically, a task that has continued 
without success until the current day.
	By the time the fourth decade of the twentieth
century was underway, the search for  psychic energy had
stalled.  The huge database of anecdotal human testimony
proved too unreliable, too easy to explain away as
subjective desire, fakery, or delusion.  Whenever serious
attempts were made to gather objective data under
controlled conditions, plausible explanations such as
trickery or simple coincidence were readily found--if not
by the investigators, then by their critics.  Although
these plausibilities were not always conclusively proven,
they were never conclusively ruled out.  And, as long as
ordinary explanations for reports of suggested psychic
phenomena remained viable, the law of parsimony
prevented extraordinary explanations, such as psychic
energy, from being written into the annals of scientific
knowledge.
	Despite what was by then over a half-century of
failure to verify  scientifically the existence of psychic
energy, the quest was not abandoned.   In 1934, Duke
University botanist-turned-parapsychologist Joseph
Banks Rhine announced to the world that he had finally
found the smoking gun.  Not only does psychic energy
exist, Rhine asserted, but it is widespread and common. 
	Rhine made this discovery after analyzing the data
from a few simple card-guessing experiments, easily
duplicated by family members across a dining table.  His
results were reported in a book called _Extra-Sensory
Perception _.[1]  They were sensational.  Headlines
everywhere announced that the ancient, intuitive belief
that mind transcends matter was at last confirmed in a
scientific laboratory. 
	On March 23, 1989, electrochemists Martin
Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons made an announcement
of comparable world-shaking proportions.  In a
rudimentary test tube experiment, little more
sophisticated than RhineŐs dining table exercises,
Fleischmann and Pons claimed that the energy of the sun
had been harnessed.  In one stroke, all the worldŐs energy
problems were solved for the foreseeable future.  Utopia
was around the corner as limitless energy, "too cheap to
meter," soon would be available to cleanse the
environment, cure disease, and produce the food and
material for humanity to expand to the stars.[2]
	Fleischmann and Pons said they had achieved "cold
fusion," nuclear fusion reactions that occur at room
temperature instead of the millions of degrees that
conventional physics wisdom said was required.[3]  This
they claimed to accomplish by squeezing deuterons
(nuclei of heavy hydrogen) inside the crystal lattice of
the metal palladium so that the deuterons fused into
heavier elements, with the release of far more energy
than was possible chemically.  In a few weeks of work in
their small lab at the University of Utah, they appeared
to have succeeded where giant labs all over the world had
failed after decades of costly experimentation.[4]

Telling the World
J.B. Rhine became an instant media superstar after
announcing that he had demonstrated ESP.  But he
experienced less success in convincing scientific
journals to publish his work.  The experts called upon to
referee his papers raised many questions about
statistics, controls against fraud, and replication. 
	At first Rhine made a serious attempt to answer
the criticisms, performing more experiments with
increasingly better controls.  Unfortunately, the effect
seemed to fade as the experiments got better.   Under the
pressure of the spotlight, he was forced to perform and
soon bypassed his critics, who never were satisfied
anyway.   When the _Journal of General Psychology_
rejected a Rhine paper because it was "propagandist"
in form, he started a new journal, with himself as co-
editor.[5]   Through the efforts of Margaret Mead and other
notables, parapsychology eventually obtained formal
recognition within the American scientific community. 
However, it has always remained on the fringes--more
pseudoscience than science.
	Fleischmann and Pons announced their discovery of
cold fusion in a press conference just 12 days after
submitting a report to the _Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry_.[6]  These actions were taken prior to making a
presentation in front of peers at a scientific conference,
or even a departmental seminar--a highly unconventional
procedure.  An unwritten rule in science holds that press
announcements of new discoveries should be delayed
until the date of publication of the results in a scientific
journal, not simply the date of submission.  This allows
for the conventional process of peer review to take its
course outside the glare of publicity.  
	The day after their press conference, Fleischmann
and Pons submitted a paper to the British journal
_Nature_ that was evidently similar to that sent to _J.
Elec. Chem_.  When the _Nature_ paper was returned with
questions from the reviewers, the chemists withdrew it,
protesting that they were too busy to address the
reviewersŐ concerns.  _J. Elec. Chem_ was less fussy and
accepted the paper immediately. 

Reactions
>From the beginning of the cold fusion saga, most
physicists were highly skeptical while some in the
chemistry community welcomed Fleischmann and Pons as
heros.  A bit of healthy inter-professional rivalry was
evident.  The president of the American Chemical
Society, Clayton Callis, was ecstatic that chemists had
"come to the rescue" of the physicists who had not
succeeded in controlling fusion with their expensive hot
fusion experiments.[7]  But as the facts gradually worked
their way through the forest of media hype, most
chemists soon joined in the ranks of cold fusion skeptics. 
	A series of revelations inexorably squeezed all
credibility from cold fusion research in the eyes of most
knowledgeable observers.   First, FleischmannŐs and PonsŐ
methodology was so questionable, so open to criticism on
every front, that even had their claims turned out to be
valid, many scientists would have been left with a bad
taste in their mouths.   But, beyond that, the claims were
not validated.  Let me examine some of the technical
issues.
	The main nuclear reactions known to occur when
two deuterons come together are: 
			^2H + ^2H -> ^3He + n          (1)	
			          ->  ^3H + p          (2)
			  	  ->  ^4He + gamma     (3)
Here standard nuclear physics notation is used, where n
is a neutron, p is a proton,  gamma is a gamma-ray (high
energy photon), and nuclei are indicated by their chemical
symbols with the number of protons plus neutrons
comprising the nucleus given as a superscript.   For
example, the most common nucleus of the helium atom,
^4He, contains two protons and two neutrons, while the
isotope ^3He contains two protons and one neutron.  The
three isotopes of hydrogen are: ^1H = p (the proton); ^2H
(the deuteron: one proton, one neutron); and ^3H (the
triton: one proton, two neutrons).  
	These three nuclear reactions are all observed at
higher energies (that is, higher than room temperature). 
However, (3) is far weaker than (1) or (2) for a
fundamental reason:  It is electromagnetic, as evidenced
by the gamma-ray, while the other two are strong-
nuclear.  The theoretical rate for the third reaction is
about ten million times lower than the first two,
agreeing with what is observed in conventional
experiments.  
	To demonstrate that cold fusion qualifies as a
promising practical energy source, significant excess
energy output must be measured.  The issue is a
quantitative one, and obtaining reliable numbers proved
to be tricky.  The experiments did not power themselves,
as they would be expected to do in practical use; they
were plugged into the laboratory wall outlet.  They
stopped when the power failed.  In all cases of which I
am aware, more energy went in than was directly
measured coming out and the claim of net energy
production rested on the estimation of certain large
theoretical corrections for energy lost in the apparatus
as heat and gas.  Furthermore, while at a given instant
net power out may have been observed, this could have
simply resulted from stored energy previously input--
like a battery.[8]
	Perhaps some small amount of energy was being
produced by an unexceptional chemical or non-nuclear
physical process not yet fully understood, but not
miraculous either.  However, this is not what was
claimed.  Proponents insisted that the energy released in
cold fusion was far too large to have a conventional
explanation.  They asserted that the reaction must be
nuclear or something even more exotic. 
	To unequivocally demonstrate that a nuclear
reaction is responsible, nuclear reaction products, such
as neutrons or gamma-rays, must be found at intensities
far above the usual backgrounds in the laboratory.  Again
the matter is quantitative, and the fact that a few
excess neutrons were occasionally reported to great
fanfare proved little.  Indeed, cold fusion is expected to
occur at some very low level, with no potential
consequence as an energy source.  However, in order to
generate one watt of energy, on the order of a trillion
neutrons, protons, or gamma-ray photons must be given
off each second.  These would be very hard to miss, even
by experimenters lacking special expertise and tools.  

Radiation Revelations
Fleischmann and Pons claimed evidence for some low
level nuclear radiation.  It was far below the amount
needed to be consistent with their energy output claims,
but could still have signaled a nuclear reaction within
their apparatus--a remarkable event nevertheless.  Their
original paper contains a figure that is purported to be an
energy spectrum of gamma rays observed to emanate
from their apparatus during heat production.  The authors
asserted that these gamma-rays were a secondary
product of neutrons produced in reaction (1), resulting
when neutrons combined with protons in the water
within the cold fusion cell to produce deuterons by a
process called "neutron capture."  Any elementary
nuclear physics textbook will tell you that the binding
energy of the deuteron is 2.2 MeV (Million electron-
Volts), and so the emitted gamma-ray should have a
spectrum that peaks at exactly this value. 
	A gamma-ray spectrum had been included in the
_Nature _ manuscript, which we recall was submitted
two weeks after the _J. Elec. Chem._ paper.  A figure in
the Nature paper showed the spectral peak at 2.5 MeV.  
The original _J. Elec. Chem._ manuscript reportedly
contained the same figure.  However, the version
eventually published has the identical data points as the
_Nature_ manuscript, but plotted with different scales
on both axes.  The peak is centered "correctly" at 2.2
MeV.  No satisfactory explanation has ever been given for
this alteration.
	Nuclear experts, seeing the published spectrum,
insisted that its shape was all wrong, unphysically
narrow and not exhibiting the "Compton edge" present
in other experiments and required by theory.   They also
asked Fleischmann and Pons to show the complete
spectrum, so that nearby peaks caused by natural
radioactivity could be used for calibration.  When this
was done, the "signal" was back at 2.5 MeV.[9]
	University of Utah physicists did not have a hint of
the work being done over in Chemistry until the March 23
press conference.  They were flabbergasted.[10]  A number
of their faculty were expert in the detection of nuclear
radiation and could not imagine why they were never
consulted.   When, as the result of outside pressure, they
were finally brought in, they assembled sensitive
equipment in the chemists' laboratory and made
measurements over several weeks.  They found no
evidence for any of the radiations that should accompany
nuclear processes.[11]   Pons later said that the apparatus
was not working at the time--though they had continued
to present positive results during that period.  Well,
maybe.   In any case, nuclear radiation from the Utah
apparatus was not confirmed. 
	In the weeks and months following the press
conference, nuclear laboratories all over the world
attempted to replicate cold fusion.  When none found any
convincing sign of neutrons at the required high
intensity, cold fusion proponents suggested that perhaps
few neutrons are produced.  Rather, reaction (2) involving
tritium plus proton (^3H + p) production may be primarily
responsible for the energy production.  Some laboratories
had reported seeing tritium, although not in association
with heat production, nor with the expected by-products
that would be produced by interactions of the
accompanying 3 MeV protons.  These results were almost
certainly due to contamination.   In the case of one
laboratory, there was even a suspicion of skullduggery,
with suggested surreptitious spiking of the sample with
tritium, possibly the contrivance of hoaxers.[12]  Perhaps
excess, inexplicable tritium is present, but those who
claim so have the burden of proof.  They must also
explain the missing protons. 
	Conventional deuteron fusion by the normally
dominant reactions (1) and (2) is almost certainly not
happening.  In fact, incontrovertible evidence for this
exists:  Fleischmann and Pons, at this writing, are still
alive!  With the huge heat output being claimed, the
radiation that should have been released would have
killed anyone nearby.  (Kids, donŐt try this at home.) 

Too Many Tooth Fairies
When the evidence for ESP began to diminish with
increasing laboratory controls, J. B. Rhine interpreted
this as a property of the phenomenon--the so-called
_decline effect_.   When ESP did not occur with skeptical
experts present in the laboratory, it was attributed to
the _observer effect_.   Einstein had said that in order to
convince him that ESP is real, it should fall off with
distance as its energy spreads out over a larger area. 
Anything else would violate the law of conservation of
energy.  When the specific experiment conducted to test
this _distance effect_ failed to show the expected
falloff, Rhine concluded that ESP was not a physical
phenomenon like electromagnetism.  Psychic energy, it
was inferred, is not conserved.  
	So, as its scientific support faded away, ESP
evolved from what was at first interpreted as a possible
natural phenomenon, not necessarily inconsistent with
known science, to one that gradually took on the aspect
of the miraculous, capable of violating natural law.  
	Cold fusion promoters have similarly begun to trust
in miracles rather than science.  As was the case with
the ESP decline and observer effects, and absence of a
distance effect, the irreproducibility of cold fusion has
been treated as a property to be explained, rather than as
a signal that the phenomenon simply does not exist.  It
was represented as a phenomenon that transcended
normal science.  And, since no known nuclear fusion
reaction can possibly be producing the energy output
claimed, the faithful proposed a double miracle.   
	First, they suggested that the normally very low-
rate reaction (3), in which ^4He is produced, is the
primary cold fusion energy source.  Some labs reported
seeing ^4He, although measuring it is as tricky as
measuring neutrons and tritium and the unsophisticated
can be easily fooled by natural backgrounds.  
	Indeed, fusion to ^4He is the most energetic of the
three deuteron fusion reactions, generating 24 MeV of
energy in each reaction, almost ten times higher than
reactions (1) and (2).  This energy is normally carried off
by a gamma-ray.  However, as noted above,  ^4He fusion
occurs at a rate 10 million times slower than the ^3He
and ^3H reactions because of its electromagnetic nature,
and so should only account for about a millionth of the
total energy output.  Perhaps ^4He production becomes
favored at room temperature--although no one can
imagine why.  
	This was the first miracle proposed, the first
invocation of the Tooth Fairy.  Theoretical physicists are
normally allowed to invoke the Tooth Fairy once in their
more speculative presentations.  However, cold fusion
theorists had to invoke the Tooth Fairy a second time to
explain why no one then saw the slightest hint of 24 MeV
gamma-rays, when they should have appeared in the
billions.
	Gamma-rays have wavelengths thousands of times
smaller than the spacings between atoms.  Some will
interact with individual atoms, but most will pass right
on through and be detected outside the apparatus.  They
are even more penetrating than the longer wavelength X-
rays.  However, as we have seen, significant numbers of
gamma-rays or any other nuclear particles are not
detected in cold fusion experiments.  Skeptics took this
as evidence against cold fusion.  Believers took it as a
miraculous property to be explained by a second call on
the Tooth Fairy.
	This second miracle occurs, according to believers,
when the energy released in the reaction is absorbed by
the palladium lattice as a whole, converting directly into
heat rather than being carried off by gamma-rays. 
Processes of this sort can in fact happen at low photon
energies, where the photon wavelengths are large
compared to the distances between atoms and the
photons behave as waves rather than as point particles. 
A beam of visible light, for example, will transfer energy
to an atomic lattice as a whole.  However, this cannot
happen for 24 MeV photons without violating well-
established laws of physics.
	The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics
will allow 24 MeV of energy to be transferred
"virtually" to the lattice, that is, without gamma-
rays, provided it happens in less than the order of 10^-23
second.  However, since atoms are typically spaced about
10^-8 centimeter apart, and the speed of light is 3x10^10
centimeters per second, this transfer of energy can
happen only at speeds tens of thousands of times the
speed of light.  That is, it must violate one of the prime
precepts of EinsteinŐs theory of relativity, that no
motion can exceed the speed of light.
	At the Second Annual Cold Fusion Conference, held
June 20 through July 4, 1991, in Como, Italy, the faithful
speculated about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR)
Paradox of quantum mechanics and how that may allow
for superluminal signal transfer of energy to the lattice. 
Interestingly, this is the same mechanism invoked by ESP
believers to explain their imagined instantaneous
transfer of psychic energy from mind to mind throughout
the universe.[13]  Perhaps the holistic field of "cosmic
consciousness" that purportedly accounts for ESP, the
powers of Transcendental Meditation, and the efficacy of
homeopathic nostrums is also responsible for
superluminal energy transfer between the atoms of the
palladium lattice in cold fusion! 
	But superluminal, holistic processes are unknown
outside of Shirleyland.  Still, cold fusion believers
insisted that something of this sort is happening. 
Visions of paradigms danced in their heads.  Now they
fantasized that they had not only solved the worldŐs
energy problems, but produced a fundamental revolution
in physics to boot--finally destroying the hated
reductionism of modern physics and chemistry.  Cold
fusion and ESP were one!  
	ESP believers had taken the lack of physical signals
for ESP as evidence that the process is not physical,
rather than drawing the more economical conclusion that
ESP is simply non-existent.  Similarly, cold fusion
believers refused to consider the far more economical
explanation, that they were not seeing anything of great
significance and never did.

On the Attack
After the Utah physicists who looked for neutrons around
the Fleischmann and Pons apparatus published their
results in _Nature_, they received threatening letters
from the chemists' lawyer that were later withdrawn
after intense outrage from the scientific community.  
	I don't know if Rhine ever sued a critic.  Perhaps
that was not the thing to do in those kinder, gentler days,
and he had a reputation as a gentleman.  But in 1987, I
was a co-defendant, along with CSICOP, its chairman
Paul Kurtz, magician James Randi, the University of
Hawaii, and several colleagues in a suit brought by a
Hawaii psychic who claimed we had defamed him by
questioning his public statements that mental telepathy
is a phenomenon that is established worldwide. 
Parapsychologists everywhere rushed to his support.  The
judge ruled the suit frivolous and tossed it out of court,
but it still cost CSICOP and the taxpayers of Hawaii
considerable money in legal costs.  
	Concurrently, Randi and the Committee for the
Investigation into Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)
was sued by famed psychic Uri Geller.  Geller apparently
discovered that, in America, critics who have no deep-
pocket source of funds can be effectively silenced by
bringing suit, even when that suit is absent of merit. 
Geller, a millionaire who lives on a lavish estate in
England, also filed three lawsuits against me, in London,
Honolulu, and Miami, over a statement made in my book
_Physics and Psychics_.[14]  After losing the suits in
Miami and Hawaii, and the one against CSICOP, Geller has
settled with a considerable financial loss. 

Cosmic Delusions
Pseudoscience itself is a phenomenon.  Since science is
so successful, many outside of science attempt to ride on
its back to fame and fortune.  They have found that by
labelling something "scientific" they can gain a
certain credibility with an undiscerning public.  One sees
this in newspaper ads for astrologers and chiropractors,
and those tapes peddled on cable TV that tell us we can
solve all our problems by just thinking we can.  
	J. B. Rhine and those who followed his lead have not
provided adequate evidence for the existence of ESP. 
Fleischmann and Pons, and those who followed their lead,
have not provided adequate evidence for cold fusion. 
	Still, with no basis other than faith, the ESP and
cold fusion faithful continue to press their case with
religious fervor.  Like parapsychology, cold fusion seems
to have passed on from science to pseudoscience, carried
on by a few diehards who have allowed their desires to
overcome their reason.  The parallels are striking.  It
seems no coincidence that the only U.S. laboratory that
claimed agreement with Fleischmann and Pons on
anomalous heat production was SRI International
(formerly Stanford Research Institute --not affiliated
with Stanford University, though this connection is often
claimed), the same organization that reported evidence
for remote viewing and the ESP powers of Uri Geller.   
	The case studies of ESP and cold fusion bring out
some characteristics of the science-pseudoscience
interface.  Not all unsuccessful scientific ideas
degenerate into pseudoscience.  Most die an honorable
death of failure to be confirmed by reality.  The
proponents eventually give up and move on to more
profitable activities.  ESP and cold fusion live on, not
because the data demand them, but because people want
to believe them. 
	ESP and cold fusion are cosmic delusions, like
astrology and the belief that UFOs are visitors from
higher civilizations in space.  Delusions prevent those
who hold them from facing reality.  They provide easy
solutions to the problems of life.  The existence of ESP
would mean that the human mind is capable of
overcoming the barriers of space and time, allowing us to
avoid death.  Cold fusion would free us from the tyranny
of limited energy, allowing us to expand without limit.  
Even perfectly respectable scientists, whose prior work
was carried out with integrity and competence, can fall
victim to the siren call of glory and immortality when
they imagine their research may be touching phenomena
of such immense consequence. 

The Final Word
One should not conclude that the ESP and cold fusion
stories are examples of science gone wrong.  Quite the
contrary.  In fact, the scientific method worked fine in
both cases and is now in the process of having the final
word.  The pressures of publicity, big money, politics,
and human aspirations did not significantly impede the
remorseless application of the critical method.  No one
prevented skeptics from freely stating their objections
(although not always at believer conventions, where
sometimes only "positive results" have been allowed
to be presented).  
	While nothing in science is final, a strong
consensus exists that ESP and cold fusion are
sufficiently unpromising to warrant further
investigation at this time.  The followers of J. B. Rhine,
Martin Fleischmann, and B. Stanley Pons should move on
to something else.

Acknowledgements
This essay benefitted greatly from critical readings by
colleagues Robert Cence, James Gaines, John Learned,
Douglas Morrison, Thornton Murphy, Sandip Pakvasa,
Michael Salamon, and Xerxes Tata.

________________________
Victor J. Stenger is Professor  of Physics and Astronomy
at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.  He is the author of
_Not By Design:  The Origin of the Universe _ (Prometheus
Books, 1988) and _Physics and Psychics:  The Search for
a World Beyond the Senses _ (Prometheus Books, 1990). 
His latest book is _The Unconscious Quantum:
Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology_
(Prometheus Books, 1995).
	
Notes

[1]J. B. Rhine, Extra-Sensory Perception,  Boston, Bruce
Humphries, 1934.

[2]For a complete history of cold fusion through 1993, see
Gary Taubes, Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times
of Cold Fusion, New York, Random House, 1993.

[3]When I use the term "cold fusion" in this essay, it
will refer to the specific claim by Fleischmann, Pons,
and their supporters that huge energy production is
occurring.  Cold fusion has been demonstrated to exist
under muon catalysis, and may also occur in palladium,
but at rates that are far too low to have any application
as an energy source.

[4]Fleischmann and Pons have claimed that they worked for
years on cold fusion before making public their results. 
But the evidence indicates that they were heavily
occupied with many other unrelated projects over those
years, and the specific experiment reported was done in
just a few weeks.  See the discussion in Reference 7.

[5]Seymour H. Mauskopf and Michael R. McVaugh, The
Elusive Science:  Origins of Experimental Psychical
Research,  Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1980, p. 146.

[6]Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons,  Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry  251, 301 (1989).

[7]Frank Close,Too Hot to Handle:  The Race for Cold
Fusion., Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1991
p. 147.

[8]The distinction between energy and power is important
to understand here.   Power is the rate of energy usage,
normally measured in watts.  A  battery will have a net
power output at a given time as it uses up its stored
energy. 

[9]For a detailed discussion of the matter of the moving
gamma-ray peak, see Close, Ref. 7.  The full gamma ray
spectrum can be found in  M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M.
Hawkins, and R. J. Hoffman, Nature  339, 667 (1989). 
See the immediately following critique by R. D. Petrasso
et al. 

[10]When I encountered a friend who happened to be a Utah
physicist that summer at a meeting in Ireland, I observed
that he had underlined the portion of his name tag that
said "Department of Physics" with a bold marker. 

[11]M. H. Salamon et al., Nature 344,  March 29, 1990, p.
401.  For editorial commentary, see pp. 365 and 375 of
the same issue.

[12]Gary Taubes, Science,  June 15, 1990.

[13]For a detailed discussion see Victor J. Stenger, The
Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and
Cosmology, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995.

[14]Victor J. Stenger,  Physics and Psychics:  The Search
for a World Beyond the Senses , Amherst, NY, Prometheus
Books, 1990.

--------------3C36C11E9DFBFCCE49B9189B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------3C36C11E9DFBFCCE49B9189B--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 06:00:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA05623;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:59:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:59:35 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981217085926.00860e00 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:59:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Stenger: CF as pseudoscience 1996 
In-Reply-To: <3678AA46.E7305C51 earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fP1gq2.0.mN1.6vGUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25387
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 11:52 PM 12/16/98 -0700, Richard Murray wrote:

>ESP and Cold Fusion
>Parallels in Pseudoscience
>Victor J. Stenger
>
>The Utopian Quests
>By the late nineteenth century, science was well
>established in the public mind as the primary method by
>which useful knowledge of the material universe is

...(out of date and/or inaccurate info on cf removed)

>This essay benefitted greatly from critical readings by
>colleagues Robert Cence, James Gaines, John Learned,
>Douglas Morrison, Thornton Murphy, Sandip Pakvasa,
>Michael Salamon, and Xerxes Tata.


   ROTFLOL  

   This flawed monograph was out-of-date and 
inaccurate even in '96.   Hopefully the author
uses more scholarship in his other areas of 
interest than in this meagre attempt to 
substitute flawed reporting for science.





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 06:06:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA07248;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:05:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:05:05 -0800
Message-ID: <043001be29c1$27ee2ce0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Ron.Brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Electron-Proton/Deuteron Collisions and Energy Cycling?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:27:52 -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: <"G_V4r1.0.6n1.H-GUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25388
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If forced collision of an electron with a proton or deuteron (nucleon)
causes energy transfer from the nucleon (En)to the electron (Ee):

dEn = kq^2/dR  ---> dEe = kq^2/dR   (joules)

when the electron returns to it's "normal" radius (R)the proton or deuteron
is left with a mass/energy deficit (larger radius) with spin/momentum
(mvr)conserved.

Would this  nucleon "deficit" be compensated by the thermal environment
acting as a "Heat Pump" or the Vacuum ZPE?

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 06:24:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12976;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:23:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:23:09 -0800
Message-ID: <044701be29c8$9e563380$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stenger: CF as pseudoscience 1996 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:21:57 -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: <"eB5Gp1.0.gA3.CFHUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25389
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Stenger: CF as pseudoscience 1996 

Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>
>At 11:52 PM 12/16/98 -0700, Richard Murray wrote:
>
>>ESP and Cold Fusion
>>Parallels in Pseudoscience
>>Victor J. Stenger
>>
>>The Utopian Quests
>>By the late nineteenth century, science was well
>>established in the public mind as the primary method by
>>which useful knowledge of the material universe is
>
>...(out of date and/or inaccurate info on cf removed)
>
>>This essay benefitted greatly from critical readings by
>>colleagues Robert Cence, James Gaines, John Learned,
>>Douglas Morrison, Thornton Murphy, Sandip Pakvasa,
>>Michael Salamon, and Xerxes Tata.
>
>
>   ROTFLOL 

Good way to get a hernia, Dr. Swartz!   :-) 
>
>   This flawed monograph was out-of-date and 
>inaccurate even in '96.   Hopefully the author
>uses more scholarship in his other areas of 
>interest than in this meagre attempt to 
>substitute flawed reporting for science.

LOL!

Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 06:48:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19579;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:45:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:45:28 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981217093744.0068a310 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:37:44 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: December 17, 1903 10:30 a.m.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kxI443.0.kn4.7aHUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25390
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

An account written by Orville Wright first published in Flying magazine,
describing events 95 years ago today:

During the night of December 26th a strong cold wind blew from the north.
When we arose on the morning of the 17th, the puddles of water, which had
been standing about the camp since the recent rains, were covered with ice.
The wind had a velocity of 10 to 12 meters per second (22 to 27 miles an
hour). We thought it would die down before long, and so remained indoors
the early part of the morning. But when ten o'clock arrived, and the wind
was as brisk as ever, we decided that we had better get the machine out and
attempt a flight. We hung out the signal for the men of the Life Saving
Station. We thought that by facing the flyer into a strong wind, there
ought to be no trouble in launching it from the level ground about camp. We
realized the difficulties of flying in so high a wind, but estimated that
the added dangers in flight would be pardy compensated for by the slower
speed in landing.

We laid the track on a smooth stretch of ground about one hundred feet west
of the new building. The biting cold wind made work difficult, and we had
to warm up frequendy in our living room, where we had a good fire in an
improved stove made of a large carbide can. By the time all was ready, J.
T. Daniels, W. S. Dough and A. D. Etheridge, members of the Kill Devil
Life-Saving Station; W. C. Brinkley of Manteo; and Johnny Moore, a boy from
Nag's Head, had arrived.

We had a "Richard" hand anemometer with which we measured dhe velocity of
the wind. Measurements made just before starting the first flight showed
velocities of 11 to 12 meters per second, or 24 to 27 miles per hour.
Measurements made just before the last flight gave between 9 and 10 meters
per second. One made just afterward showed a little over 8 meters. The
records of the Government Weather Bureau at Kitty Hawk gave the velocity of
the wind between the hours of IO:30 and 12 o'clock, the time during which
the four flights were made, as averaging 27 miles at the time of the first
flight and 24 miles at the time of the last.

With all the knowledge and skill acquired in thousands of flights in the
last ten years, I would hardly think today of making my first flight on a
strange machine in a twenty-seven-mile wind, even if I knew that the
machine had already  been flown and was safe. After these years of
experience, I look with amazement upon our audacity in attempting flights
with a new and untried machine under such circumstances. Yet faith in our
calculations and the design of the first machine, based upon our tables of
air pressures, obtained by months of careful laboratory work, and
confidence in our system of control developed by three years of actual
experiences in balancing gliders in the air, had convinced us that the
machine was capable of lifting and maintaining itself in the air, and that,
with a little practice, it could be safely flown.

Wilbur having used his turn in the unsuccessful attempt on the 14th, the
right to the first trial now belonged to me. After running the motor a few
minutes to heat it up, I released the wire that held the machine to the
track, and the machine started forward into the wind. Wilbur ran at the
side of the machine, holding the wing to balance it on the track. Unlike
the start on the 14th, made in a calm, the machine, facing a 27-mile wind,
started very slowly. Wilbur was able to stay with it till it lifted from
the track after a forty-foot run. One of the Life Saving men snapped the
camera for us, taking a picture just as the machine had reached the end of
the track and had risen to a height of about two feet. The slow forward
speed of the machine over the ground is clearly shown in the picture by
Wilbur's attitude. He stayed along beside the machine without any effort.

The course of the flight up and down was exceedingly erratic, partly due to
the irregularity of the air and partly to lack of experience in handling
this machine. The control of the front rudder was difficult on account of
its being balanced too near the center. This gave it a tendency to turn
itself when started, so that it turned too far on one side and then too far
on the other. As a result, the machine would rise suddenly to about ten
feet, and then as suddenly dart for the ground. A sudden dart when a little
over a hundred feet from the end of the track, or a little over 120 feet
from the point at which it rose into the air, ended the flight. As the
velocity of the wind was over 35 feet per second and the speed of the
machine over the ground against this wind ten feet per second, the speed of
the machine relative to the air was over 45 feet per second, and the length
of the flight was equivalent to a flight of 540 feet made in calm air.

This flight lasted only 12 seconds, but it was nevertheless the first in
the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised
itself by its own power into the air in full flight, had sailed forward
without reduction of speed, and had finally landed at a point as high as
that from which it started.

With the assistance of our visitors we carried the machine back to the
track and prepared for another flight. The wind, however, had chilled us
all through, so that before attempting a second flight, we all went to the
building again to warm up. Johnny Moore, seeing under the table a box
filled with eggs, asked one of the Station men where we got so many of
them. The people of the neighborhood eke out a bare existence by catching
fish during the short fishing season, and their supplies of other articles
of food are limited. He probably never had seen so many eggs at one time in
his whole life.

The one addressed jokingly asked him whether he hadn't noticed the small
hen running about the outside of the building. "That chicken lays eight to
ten eggs a day!" Moore, having just seen a piece of machinery lift itself
from the ground and fly, a thing at that time considered as impossible as
perpetual motion, was ready to believe nearly anything. But after going out
and having a good look at the wonderful fowl, he returned with the remark,
"It's only a common-looking chicken!"

. . .

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 07:56:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14777;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:54:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:54:05 -0800
Message-ID: <36792964.7FF6 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:55:16 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Stenger: CF as pseudoscience 
References: <3678AA46.E7305C51 earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g9EnZ2.0.pc3.SaIUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25391
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Sorry, guys, I see that my evil twin, Victor, has been at it again!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 09:04:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11449;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:01:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:01:59 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981217105953.00910130 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:59:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: neutrons in cloud chamber
Cc: ron.brodzinski pnl.gov
In-Reply-To: <03ec01be2944$efb3b740$f7441d26 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fmeFl1.0.lo2.7aJUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25392
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 15:39 12/16/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>From: Brodzinski, Ronald L <ron.brodzinski pnl.gov>

>>Two possibilities:
>>
>>1) the book is wrong and it wasn't caused by a neutron, or
>>
>>2) the track isn't caused by a neutron, but by a recoiling proton following
>>collision with a fast neutron.

Thanks Fred and THANKS Ron.  In fact both of your statements above appear
to be correct.  Reading more closely the text surrounding the photograph:

"In order to show recoil protons arising from neutron bombardment, a piece
of hydrogen-containing material (polyethylene) is mounted in the critical
zone on the wall.  When neutrons impinge on the polyethylene, recoil
protons arise, whose tracks traverse the entire chamber. Figure 41-47 shows
tracks of neutrons (15.3) and electrons (15.4)."

Label 15.3 is beside a long track that traverses the entire chamber.  It
seems clear to me now that they just said "neutron" when they meant
"proton" in the last sentence.



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 Dec 17 17:48:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10770;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:46:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:46:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3679B416.EC164F85 earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:47:03 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Chubb: Blue: band state theory  12.17.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------4EA6FAB86994DC68D9D88E10"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bNPmT1.0.Ce2.aFRUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25393
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.
--------------4EA6FAB86994DC68D9D88E10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:   Re: Blue: Chubb: band state theory 12.16.98
       Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:49:18 -0500
      From:  chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
        To:    Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>

Rich,

   I tried to use the reply all capability to reduce your work.  Your
list
is so long, I was not able to do this.  I would appreciate your
forwarding this along.  In the future, if you want, I can use my own
self-generated
list to forward my responses to your distribution list.

     I would appreciate your forwarding my response.

Thanks,  SCOTT

>So according to you, "momentum is transferred to the
boundaries of the
>solid through recoil."  Sounds reasonable, within limits, but the
clear
>requirement is that we have some momentum.  If a nucleus emits
a gamma
>ray or a nucleon, there will be recoil momentum to be accounted
for.

The requirement that the nucleus emits a gamma ray is the result of
momentum conservation in free space.  When all of the momentum
associated with this process is instantaneously transferred (without
energy) to all
periodically equivalently located positions where ion band D
nuclei->band 4He nuclei reside, there is no gamma ray emitted.

The necessary condition for this state of affairs to occur perfectly is
that no energy be transferred to the bulk lattice (with energy being
transferred to the surface) through the electromagnetic interaction.
And
whether or not this perfect condition holds is a size-dependent
condition, determined by energy conservation and minimization.

>But in the total absence of any emission for the nucleus or indeed
the
lattice,
>how can we possibly have a recoil?  Does your theory not
conserve momentum?

Momentum conservation is the reason for the lattice recoil.  The
momentum of the reaction instantaneously is transferred to all
periodically
equivalent locations, which is equivalent to transferring the momentum,
all at once to the center of mass of the lattice.

>It is important to note that you assert a recoil involving perhaps
10^11
>mass units and kinetic energy of about 23 MeV.  Now tell us what
balances
>that momentum vector.

For concreteness, let's consider one reaction in the solid, consisting
of
~10^9 atoms, each possessing mass ~100 AMU, as you seem to imply
from your comment.  The motion of the bulk lattice, as a whole (or a
portion of it),
or (more generally) the instantaneous redefinition of the boudary of the

bulk, provides the source of momentum that counter-balances the
momentum of the nuclear reaction.

In this context, it is important to recognize that the bulk lattice does

not consist of the entire crystal.  It is only that portion of the
crystal
in which periodic order is preserved.  In a classical sense, as this
bulk
lattice moves (or its boundary is redefined), discontinuous changes in
momentum occur at its boundaries, associated with the surface region.
These discontinuous changes in momentum induce forces which
counter-balance the change in momentum associated with the recoil of the
lattice.  The
counter-balancing effect, results in deformation of the surface and its
boundary, which leads to energy release.

However, now, because the momentum effectively is distributed over
the entire bulk lattice, the momentum that acts at any individual
location in
the deformaiton of the surface region is of atomic (as opposed to
nuclear) scale, and the resulting energy release occurs diffusely.

In a Quantum mechanical framework, this picture is only slightly
altered.
Here what happens is that discontinuous changes in momentum (wave
function cusps) in the surface region lead to a spontaneous redefinition
of the
zero of kinetic energy of the bulk region, relative to the surface.
This
results in a shift of the chemical potential of the bulk, relative to
the
surface, and a coherent redistribution of charge (from electrons, 4He
ions, and D ions).  The coherent redistribution of charge (which can be
viewed classically as the result of the "surface region" responding to
the recoil
of the bulk lattice) provides the mechanism for dispersing energy from
the reaction.

In either case, the solid provides a bridge (or catalyst) effectively
for
removing both energy and momentum from the bulk, resulting from
nuclear reactions, to the surface region.


>So we have "zero-energy" photons available to transfer
momentum to the
>lattice, should we actually have some momentum to transfer.
Actually,
>all you are saying, I gather, is that the static Coulomb interaction
binds
>the solid lattice together such that it can recoil as a whole,
provided
>the strength of that binding is sufficient.  Let us consider tapping
a
>solid with a hammer.  As long as the hammer blows are light, the
solid
>recoils as a whole, but what happens if I strike much harder?  I
think
>we all know the answer.

And I assert that the nuclear reaction is just like tapping the solid
very
slightly with a hammer.  In particular, the momentum associated with an
individual nuclear reaction is vanishingly small in the context of the
momentum required to move a macroscopic lattice an appreciable
amount.

What seems to bother you is that when this momentum is localized (not
shared by many lattice sites), high energies and momentum are released.
When the momentum is shared instantaneously over many lattice sites,
the situation is dramatically different.

>> At the boundaries, energy is released.  Energy release is a
>> time-dependent process; when instantaneous momentum
transfer is
>> possible, the momentum that gives rise to the energy that one
normally
>> associates with the nuclear reaction, locally, can be
transformed to
>> momentum at a distant point, which gives rise to energy
release.  In
>> other words, I am addressing how energy release can become
non-local.  I
>> would have thought this should be obvious.  But apparently, it
is not.
>
>Obvious in what sense?  The concept of lattice recoil is one which
has some
>obvious limitations, which I have not seen you address.

I have, in fact, addressed this.  The criteria minimum excitation energy
>
greater than energy through de-excitation governs whether a "ground
state" configuration will recoil.  This is the basis of the

(3.8 MeV/10^9=.023 eV <~ minimal D phonon energy )

calculation that leads to the estimate of 10^9 unit cells as the minimal

size for self-sustaining reactions.

>>In other words, I am addressing how energy release can
become non-local.  I
>> would have thought this should be obvious.  But apparently, it
is not.

>Obvious in what sense?  The concept of lattice recoil is one which
has some
obvious limitations, which I have not seen you address.  I suggest that
>it should be obvious to you that you need to justify your
assertions about
>lattice recoil, because it obviously does not occur under
absolutely every
>condition.

Again, I have addressed this.  Coherence is guaranteed when the band
D+ ions are initially in their ground state and the de-excitation energy
per
unit cell is less than the smallest phonon excitation energy.


>I have completed the suggested exercise.  I acknowledge that the
lattice
>is bound together by the Coulomb potential and that the solid
thus formed
>may recoil as a whole, provided the required recoil conserves
momentum and
>that the elastic limit of the crystal is not exceeded.

The "elastic limit" is an inappropriate term because the "elastic limit"
is
less restrictive than the limit that applies.  In particular, in the
"elastic limit", the bulk solid is allowed to vibrate.  In describing
resonant coherence, I am referring to an extreme "elastic limit" in
which
the bulk solid does not vibrate.  In particular, in this "extreme
elastic
limit" ("rigid limit" is a more appropriate term) E(k)=E(k+G), where E
represents the energy of any particle, G=reciprocal lattice vector, hbar
x
k = momentum (up to hbar x some value of G).

These processes are dominant at low temperature.  This is known.  The
"missing G," associated with hbar x k only being equal to the momentum
modulo this value of G, provides the source of momentum conservation.
The range of possible values of G approximately is 0<|G|<~Ncell x
2pi/lattice spacing, where Ncell is the number of unit cells.  In other
words, in the
rigid limit, huge values (in a microscopic sense) of G (and momentum)
can be absorbed "and transmitted" to isolated locations, despite the
fact that
it might appear that only a small amount is transferred (for example,
through a "tap" of a hammer) macroscopically.

>
 >Ah yes, the dynamics is at the surface where your theory does
not venture.

Absolutely UNTRUE!!  The theory predicts that the dominant effect
(through the redefinition of charge at the surface) provides the
dominant mode
for energy release.

The tone of the comment also is inappropriate.  Why not simply say,

"Does the theory actually apply or make use of the physics associated
with the surface?"

>It's an old theatrical device where all the action that is too
difficult
>to stage takes place off stage.

This "comment", again, is inappropriate.

>It is important to note what accounts for the break-down of time
reversibility.

I agree.  Finiteness of crystal and energy release break the Unitarity
that
is present in an infinite crystal at T=0.

>And further to note that once that comes into the play, the Chubb
assertion
>that he is describing a "static" system goes out the window!

I only said the bulk is "static."  See comments at the beginning of the
discussion.

>Indeed, we cannot reverse the process because the system is not
static.

This is not correct.  The system is dynamic at the boundaries.  It is
hear
that energy is released.  The energy release is responsible for the
breakdown in reversibility.

>Something leaves that does not come back.

Correct.

>You're complete wrong about my intuition.  It leads me to
conclude, in
>agreement
>with you, that the system you describe is static and unchanging.

This is not what I am saying.  And your conclusion is completely wrong.
The reason is that you are thinking entirely about the bulk region and
are
assuming that we are using the surface region in an obscure way,
possibly as a kind of "dodge."  In point of fact, the dynamics are all
in the
surface region.  There is redefinition of the surface region dipole, a
build-up of charge, and a dynamical response in this region that is
responsible for energy release.  What is foreign to you, I assert, and
my
reason for believing that the associated picture is counter-intuitive to

you is that the picture is non-local:  the entire solid participates
coherently in the transfer of momentum, leading to energy dissipation at

the surface.  The associated phenomenon can be explained in a number
of different ways:

1. Partial Particle Picture:  zero energy photons transmit momentum to
all of the lattice sites simultaneously; imbalance in momentum is
transferred
to center of mass of the solid (as a whole), or, equivalently, shared by

lattice sites at once.  Lattice moves as a whole or its surfaces are
redefined, with energy released at boundaries.  Dynamics occurs at
boundaries.

2.  Wave Picture:  Coulomb potential transfers momentum from nuclear
reaction to "standing, resonant" Bloch state (waves), which transmit
momentum to boundaries, without energy being released, except at
boundaries.  Dynamics occurs at boundaries.

3.  Full Particle Picture: quanta of momenta (hbar x Reciprocal Lattice
Vector) can be exchanged between "particles" within the bulk , through
"zero frequency photons", everywhere in the solid, without changing the
energy of anything.  But this can not occur at the boundaries of the
solid, where, effectively, an impedance mis-match occurs.  This results
in
momenta  being transferred to the surface, with energy release.
Dynamics occurs
at boundaries.

In each picture, dynamical changes do not occur in the bulk.

>Now this is a real puzzler for me.  We need not consider any
states other
>than the ground state, because there is insufficient energy
available to
>excite anything in the lattice.  If we consider atomic excitations
as well
>as nuclear excitations, that really puts a hard limit on the
available
>energy.

Phonon excitations are on the order of 10's of meV.  Typical electron
excitations are on the order of eV's.  The 10's of meV requirement is
what I have been quoting over and over again.

>I am not sure "cold fusion" can be shoehorned into this domain.

It can when crystal size is >~10^9, as I have asserted many times.

>The main problem I am having, however, is that we really have
two ground
>states to consider, and one of them is about 23 MeV above the
other!

23 MeV/10^9=.023 eV is the number I have been quoting.  This is the
relevant number that separates the two states when momentum can be
shared by 10^9 unit cells instantaneously.


>So, how do we maintain the requirement that all energy releases
be below
>the very low level that Chubb theory requires?

See last comment.

>So the intelligence lies with the process you assume.  Question is
what
>prevents some other process from occurring?

It's not just the process; it is the fact that the transition is from
the
ground state, the final state is also in the ground state, and the
exciation is transmitted through lattice recoil.

> The governing physics is associated with overlap and coherence.

>I understand this all comes as a package.  If you have the overlap
and
>coherence you assume, you may get the result that order is
preserved,
>but if something else has already disrupted that order, the
outcome then
>need not be so restricted.


This is correct.

>What I have been suggesting is that disruption
>of the order is really such a trivial matter, that it makes little
sense to
>assume that the process is dominated by your "order-preserving"
interaction.

The question of whether or not it is "such a trivial matter" depends
upon
the way things are configured and is partly responsible for why CANR
are difficult to produce.

>Proof that there are such disruptions is clearly indicated by your
>acknowledgement that the lattice is finite and imperfect and at
finite
>temperature.  And as we noted there actually must be some
relaxation time
>for the decay of the deuteron ion band state.

The governing restrictions associated with the 23.8 MeV/10^9<
minimal excitation energy criteria decide whether things occur as I have

suggested.   In particular, there are competing effects that disrupt
order (which
reduce the 10^9 factor), but which may also alter the minimal excitation

energy (by eliminating overlap with potential phonons and phonon
occupation).

>It has been a long struggle, but at last it is clear that Scott Chubb
is
>considering only a pair-wise nuclear interaction -- one deuteron
interacting
>with another deuteron.

Not true;  in order to preserve Born-Oppenheimer separability in the
wave functions, because the pairs are stable at infinite separation, we
have
demonstrated that one pair must be treated as a Bloch state. The theory
applies when impurity protons are present as well.  An important point
is that "broken pairs" must be viewed as transcients, except when
impurities are present.  If this is what you "mean," then, in a sense,
you are
correct.  However, we have considered the non-pair-wise interactions
and identified why these interactions  are transcients.

>Now he has to show us, I believe, that there is a
>very large overlap between a two-deuteron state and the ground
state of
>4He.  Has he done that?

We have done this.  It is embodied in the logic in the 1991 paper.

>> I have considered the internal wave function.  What seems to
be not
>> well-understood by you, I infer from your comment, is the
reason why one
>> of the proton-neutron pair wave functions associated should be
treated
>> as a Bloch state.  (In particular, why should the other pair, not
be
>> treated in this manner.  And why should a proton-neutron pair
be treated
>> this way at all?  Why aren't the individual nucleons in Bloch
states?
>> Etc.)  In fact, there are reasons, based on the requirements of
>> Born-Oppenheimer separability, periodic order, and the fact
that the
>> electromagnetic interaction and nuclear potentials must be
treated on a
>> comparable footing (i.e., as if they possess comparable energy
scales)
>> before, during, and after deuteron-deuteron collisions, that are
>> responsible for our treatment of the nuclear wave function in
the manner
>> that I have described.
>
>Well, if you ever described your assumed nuclear wave function, I
missed it.

You have.  The nuclear wave function is modelled with a potential that
faithfully represents 4He, as I have described previously.

>To rephrase this into the usual nuclear jargon, I think what you
are
>attempting to describe is a direct reaction.

This is not quite correct.  In essence, I think the idea is correct.
But
the distinguishing feature between what I am saying and what you are
saying is that you are inferring that we are assuming a direct d+d->4He,
in
which coupling to non-pairwise interactions (and intermediate states) is
not
present; while I am pointing out that in fact this is not merely an
assumption, it follows from the underlying requirements of
Born-Oppenheimer  separability (BOS) of the wave functions and the lack
of separability
between the strong and electromagnetic interactions.

In particular, the requirement of BOS in the initial state requires that

the initial state electromagnetic band state wave functions and nuclear
wave functions evolve independently of each other.  When it is further
required that the BOS be maintained in the presence of interaction, the
nuclear proton-neutron pair wave functions must remain independent of
the electromagnetic interaction portion of the wave function.

However, because the strong and electromagnetic interactions are not
separable, the electromagnetic portion of the wave function associated
with
the separation between D+ does couple to the nuclear wave functions
of the
final state, and to maintain separability, it is required that if the
nuclear portion of the proton-neutron pair splits, even in a transcient
way, the electromagnetic portion also splits.  However, this can never
happen because the electromagnetic portion is required to be stable on
all
length scales (otherwise its neutron would be released and it would
cease
to assymptotically match the wave function that applies at infinite D-D
separation).

>> In particular, there are three initial D nuclear band states
involved:
>>
>> |1,-1>=magnetic spin 1 of first D, magnetic spin -1 on second
D
>>
>> |-1,1>=magnetic spin -1 on first D, magnetic spin 1 on second
D
>>
>> |0,0>=magnetic spin 0 on both D's
>>
>> The spin wave function that has net spin 0=|0> is
>>
>> |0>=1/(sqrt(3))[|1,-1>+|-1,1>-|0,0>]
>>

>> In point of fact, it serves no purpose to represent things this
way
>> because the relevant wave functions assymptotically (at large
D+D
>> separations) in the initial state are more usefully represented in
terms
>> of wave functions associated with the nuclear D band
occupation.  In the
>> final state 4He configuration, this is also the case.
>
>Wait a minute here.  What is your 4He ground state, if it involves
only
>assymptotic wave functions at large D-D separaton?  That
cannot possibly
>be the wave function for the kind of 4He I use to inflate balloons!

I was referring to the behavior of the spin function in this context.
My
allusion to assymptotic wave functions is associated with requirements
(tied to BOS) that I have alluded to above.  They don't relate to the
4He state, which is modelled, as described above.

>> The key point, in terms of reaction possibilities, is that all that
is
>> required for overlap between the initial and final state to occur
is
>> that the initial state spin function not be orthogonal to |0>.
>>
>> >You will notice the problem, I believe, the very first time you
actually
>> >think about the nuclear states of this system.
>
>Is that correct?  Don't you also have to assert that your initial
state
>must be orthogonal to the other possible spin couplings?

Because there are vanishingly small reaction rates, except in the ground

state-ground state channel, couplings to the other possible spin
configurations do not lead to other reactions.  This is partly the
reason
that I thought the language and discussion might appear foreign.

>> It would be useful, I think, if you would try to look closely at
the
>> language (and biases) that you have.  I will attempt to do the
same,
>> both with respect to your language, and with respect to mine.
(The
>> example associated with interchanging Coulomb interaction
with
>"exchange
>> of zero frequency virtual photons", I suggest, is an example of
how
>> different language can elicit different biases.)
>
>Scott Chubb, you will never convince me by telling me I am too
stupid to
>understand just what a profound thinker you are.  My biases are
clearly
>evident. I have done experimental nuclear physics.  I have
investigated
>two-deuteron systems, even in solid lattices!  And I understand
just how
>unlikely it is that a solid lattice of any sort will do more that
perturb
>a nuclear process slightly.

I did not mean to sound condescending or arrogant.  I value you
comments. I was trying to illustrate that there is a communication
problem that can
result from certain terms.  Zero frequency photons is one example of
this.

What I would call a "particle" or "scattering" oriented description can
also lead to communication problems.  In particular, for example, an
entire generation (mine in particular) has been trained using Feynman
diagrams. This has led to considerable emphasis on particular, specific
processes,
in  which one result is used as input to a second result, to a third,
etc..  In
this context, it is very difficult to describe, for example, "wave-like"

phenomena, which, many times can only be represented by infinite
number of scattering processes.

The kind of thing I am referring to in graphic terms is the assumption
that energy must be transferred locally for a reaction in a localized
region to
take place.  Once this is assumed, then, almost inevitably, it is
necessary
to use a "particle" like framework.  However, in a "wave-like" picture
(in which boundary conditions play an important role), what happens
locally may be dominated by global boundary conditions.  The particle
like picture
is  dominant in nuclear physics.  The wave-like picture is dominant in
low
temperature solids.  An important point is that in most cases the two
pictures are divorced from each other, in the sense that it is not
necessary to view particle like situations using the wave-like picture.
When
coherence is involved, however, all bets are off, and it should be
possible to use both pictures to discuss the relevant situation.  The
difficulty is
that counter-intuitive limits of each picture may seem to appear in this

kind of situation.

>I find it interesting that you, too, mention the Moessbauer effect
as
>an example of a similar phenomenon to what you have been
describing.
>I therefore offer a little exercise for you.  Please calculate the
>energy transfered by lattice recoil for absolutely the highest
energy
>Moessbauer transition ever observed.  Then explain why there is
generally
>some decays that do not Moessbauer decay in those very same
lattice
>systems under the very same conditions.

The importance of periodic order has not been fully explored in this
context.  There are a number of experiments that indicate it does play a

key role in enhancing the effect.  In particular, the details of
periodic
order have been shown to alter the conditions governing whether or not
the decay occurs.

>Dick Blue

SCOTT CHUBB




--------------4EA6FAB86994DC68D9D88E10
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------4EA6FAB86994DC68D9D88E10--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 20:08:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA29339;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:07:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:07:24 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:59:19 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981217225857.21249D-100000 antioch-college.edu>
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 UAA29314
Resent-Message-ID: <"-X6zs1.0.HA7.xJTUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25394
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




	From another list...
     Hey fellows, 
Please read this stuff, will lift your mind above the mass ignorance of media
brain washing and 
conventional so called scientific "cult" believe system that stacked with
stone age of "law of Conservation of Energy." Because fear of losing their
monthly pay check.

That not knowingly they are loosing their souls by honoring spider net of
money and 
oil changers in the land that that trapped mankind in their nets as fisherman
traps the 
free fish of the oceans, with few yards of filthy fishing net.  

But let us face it.... Fear is a powerfull force, even for a short time....
You see....
Even Clinton bombed Afghanistan one day before Monica's interview, and one
again one day before the Impeachment hearings, he said: (Clinton's statement
on military strikes launched against Iraq Wednesday, as transcribed by Federal
Document Clearing House: 
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq)

I trust Y2k too will bring out all the worst fears of money changers in the
land  (suppressed energy invention). Because free spirit of American inventors
will wake up 
from bad dream of comfort zone in to pure creativity off lots of free energy
machines.

When the power, money, phones, fuell and food will not be available. 

You can check this site too 
<A HREF="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/const.html">
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/const.html</A>

*************  PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR  ************* 
Written by Jorma Hyypia for Science & Mecanics Magazine, Spring 1980 edition. 

    "We don't grant patents on perpetual motion machines," said the
examiners at the U.S. Patent Office. "It won't work because it violates the
law of Conservation of Energy," said one physicist after another. But
because, inventor Howard Johnson is not the sort of man to be intimidated by
such seemingly authoritative pronouncements, he now owns U.S. Patent No.
4,151,431 which describes how it is possible to generate motive power, as in
a motor, using only the energy contained in the atoms of permanent magnets.
That's right. Johnson has discovered how to build motors that run without an
input of electricity or any other kind of external energy!
    The monumental nature of the invention is obvious, especially in a world
facing an alarming, escalating energy shortage. Yet inventor Johnson is not
rushing to peddle his creation as the end-all solution to world- wide energy
problems. He has more important work to do. First, there's the need to
refine his laboratory prototypes into workable practical devices -in
particular a 5,000-watt electric power generator already in the building.
His second and perhaps more difficult major challenge: persuade a host of
skeptics that his ideas are indeed practical.
    Johnson, who has been coping with disbelievers for decades, can be very
persuasive in a face-to-face encounter because he can not do more than
merely theorize; he can demonstrate working models that unquestionably
create motion using only permanent magnets. When this writer was urged by
the editor of SCIENCE & MECHANICS to make a thousand mile pilgrimage to
Blacksburg, Virginia, to meet with the inventor, he went there as an
"open-minded skeptic" and as a former research Scientist determined not to
be fooled. Within two days, this former skeptic had become a believer.
Here's why. 

    Doing the Unthinkable. Howard Johnson refuses to view the "laws" of
science as somehow sacred, so doing the unthinkable and succeeding is second
nature to him. If a particular law gets in the way, he sees no harm in going
around it for a while to see if there's something on the other side. Johnson
explains the persistent opposition he experiences from the established
scientific community this way: "Physics is a measurement science and
physicists are especially determined to protect the ‘Law’ of Conservation of
Energy. Thus the physicists become game wardens who tell us what laws' we
can't violate. In this case they don't even know what the game is. But they
are so scared that I and my associates are going to violate some of these
laws, that they have to get to the pass to head us off!"
    The critics say Johnson offers a "free lunch" solution to energy
problems, and that there can be no such thing. Johnson demurs, reminding
repeatedly that he has never suggested that his invention provides something
for nothing. He also points gut that no one talks about a "free lunch" when
discussing extraction of enormous amounts of atomic power by means of
nuclear reactors and atom bombs. In his mind, it's much the same thing.
    Johnson is the first to admit he doesn't actually know where the power
be has tapped derives. But he postulates that the energy may be associated
with spinning electrons, perhaps in the form of a "presently unnamed atomic
particle." How do other physicists react to Johnson's suggestion that there
may be an atomic particle so far overlooked by nuclear physicists? Says
Johnson: "I guess it’s fair to say that most of them are revolted." On the
other hand, a few converted scientists, including some who are associated
with large and prestigious research laboratories, are intrigued enough to
suggest that there should be a hunt for the answer, be it a "particle" or
some other as yet unsuspected characteristic of atomic structure.
    This article is prefaced with the foregoing brief summary of the ongoing
controversy so that, in fairness to the inventor, we might all view his
claims with open minds, even if it means temporary setting aside of
cherished scientific concepts until more complete explanations are
forthcoming. The main question to be answered here and now is this: Does
Johnson permanent magnet motor work?
    Before providing the answer, we need to face up to another question that
undoubtedly nags in the minds of many readers: Is Johnson a bona fide
researcher, or merely a "garage mechanic" mad inventor? As the following
brief summary suggests, the inventor's credentials appear to be impeccable.
Following seven years of college and university training, Johnson worked on
atomic energy projects at Oak Ridge, did magnetics research for Burroughs
company, and served as scientific consultant to Lukens Steel. He has
participated in the development of medical electrical products, including
injection devices. For the military he invented a ceramic muffler that makes
a portable motor generator silent at 50 feet; this has been in production
for the past 18 years. His contributions to the motor industry include: a
hysteresis brake; non-locking brake materials for anti- skid application,
new methods of curing brake linings; and a method of dissolving asbestos
fibers. He has also worked on silencers for small motors, a super charger,
and has perfected a 92-pole no-brush generator to go in the wheel of Lincoln
automobiles as a skid control; that last item reduced the cost to one-eighth
of the cost of an earlier design by utilizing metal-filled plastics for the
armature and field. In all, Johnson is connected with more than 30 patents
in the fields of chemistry and physics. 

    Sticky Tape Scientist. Despite his impressive credentials, this amiable
and unpretentious inventor likes to characterize himself as a "Sticky tape"
scientist. He sees no virtue in wasting time building fancy, elaborate
equipment when more simple assemblies serve as well to test new ideas. The
prototype devices shown in the photographs in this article were assembled
with sticky tape and aluminum foil, the later material being used mainly to
keep individual, permanent magnets packaged together so that they do not fly
apart.<A HREF="http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-pg45.html">
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-pg45.html</A>
    Perhaps the best way to describe what these three gadgets do is by
reciting this writer's personal experiences during the interview
demonstration. That way I will not merely be telling what the inventor says
they do, but I will reveal what happened when I tried the experiments
myself. When we start talking about how and why the things work as they do,
well have to rely on the inventor’s explanations.
    The first item consists of more than a dozen foil-wrapped magnets
assembled to form a broad arc. Each magnet is extended upward slightly at
each end to form a low U-shape, the better to concentrate magnetic fields
where they are needed. The overall curvature of the mass of magnets
apparently has no particular significance except to show that the distance
between these stator magnets and the moving vehicle is not critical. A
transparent plastic sheet atop this magnet assembly supports a length of
plastic model railroad track. The vehicle, basically a model railroad
flatcar, supports a foil-wrapped pair of curved magnets, plus some sort of
weight, in some cases merely a rock. The weight is needed to keep the
vehicle down on the track, against the powerful magnetic forces that would
otherwise push it askew. That 'is all there is to the construction of this
representation of a "linear motor."
    I was prepared to develop eye strain in an effort to detect some sort of
motion in the vehicle. I need not have been concerned. The moment the
inventor let go of the vehicle be carefully placed at one end of the track,
it accelerated and literally zipped from one end to the other and flew onto
the floor! Wow!
    I tried the experiment myself, and could feel the powerful magnetic
forces at work as I placed the vehicle on the track. I gently eased the
vehicle to the critical starting point, taking great care not to exert any
kind of forward push, even inadvertently. I let go, Zip! It was on the floor
again, at the other end of the track. Knowing that I would be asked if the
track might have had a slant, I reversed the vehicle and started it from the
opposite end of the track. It worked just as effectively in the reverse
direction. In fact, the vehicle can even navigate a respectable upgrade. In
light of these tests, and considering the remarkable speed of the vehicle,
you can discount any notion that this was a simple "coasting" effect.
    Incidentally, the photograph shows the vehicle about half ways along the
track. It was "frozen" there by the electronic flash used to make the
picture; there is no way of "posing" the vehicle in that position short of
tying it down.
    The second device has the U-shaped magnets standing on end in a rough
circular arrangement oddly reminiscent of England's Stonehenge. This
assembly is mounted on a transparent plastic sheet supported on a plywood
panel pivoted, underneath, on a free turning wheel obtained from a
skateboard. As instructed, I eased the 8-ounce focusing magnet into the ring
of larger magnets, keeping it at least four inches away from the ring. The
40 pound magnet assembly immediately began to turn and accelerated to a very
respectable rotating speed which it maintained for as long as the focusing
magnet was held in the magnetic field. When the focusing magnet was
reversed, the large assembly turned in the opposite direction.
    Since this assembly is clearly a crude sort of motor, there's no doubt
that it is indeed possible to construct a motor powered solely by permanent
magnets.
    The third assembly, which looks like the bones of some prehistoric sea
creature, consists of a tunnel constructed of rubber magnet material that
can be easily bent to form rings. This was one of the demonstration models
Johnson took to the U.S. Patent Office during his appeal proceedings.
Normally the patent examiners spend only a few minutes with each patent
applicant, but played with Johnson’s devices for the better part of an hour.
As the inventor was leaving, he overheard one sideline observer remark: "How
would you like to follow that act?!"
    It took Johnson about six years of legal hassling to finally obtain his
patent, and he has been congratulated for his ultimate victory over patent
office bureaucracy as well as for his inventiveness. One sign that he left
the patent office more than a little shaken by the experience was the
inclusion of diagrammatic material in the printed patent that does not
belong there. So if you look up the patent, pay no attention to the
"ferrite" graph on the first page; it belongs in some other patent!
    The tunnel device of course worked very well in the inventor's office
during my visit although Johnson observed that the rubber magnets are
perhaps a thousand times weaker than the cobalt samarium magnets used the
other assemblies. There's just one big problem with the more powerful
magnets: they cost too much. According to the inventor, the magnets used to
construct the Stonehenge rotating model are collectively worth more than one
thousand dollars. But there's no need to depend solely on mass-production
economies to bring the cost down to competitive levels. Johnson and U.S.
Magnets and Alloy Co. are in the process of developing alternative,
relatively low cost magnetic materials that perform very well. 

How do they work? The drawing that shows a curved "arcuate" armature magnet
in three successive positions over a line of fixed stator magnets provides
at least highly simplified insights into the theory of permanent magnet
motive power generation. Johnson says curved magnets with sharp leading and
trailing edges are important because they focus and concentrate the magnetic
energy much more effectively than do blunt-end magnets. These arcuate
magnets are made slightly longer than the lengths of two stator magnets plus
the intervening space, in Johnson's setups about 3+1/8 inches long.
    Note that the stator magnets all have their North faces upward, and that
they are resting on a high magnetic permeability support plate that helps
concentrate the force fields. The best gap between the end poles of the
armature magnet and the stator magnets appears to be about 3/8 inch.
    As the armature north pole passes over a magnet, it is repelled by the
stator north pole; and there's an attraction when the north pole is passing
over a space between the stator magnets. The exact opposite is of course
true with respect to the armature South pole. It is attracted when passing
over a stator magnet, repelled when passing over a space.
    The various magnetic forces that come into play are extremely complex,
but the drawing shows some of the fundamental relationships. Solid lines
represent attraction forces, dashed lines represent repulsion forces, and
double lines in each case indicate the more dominant forces.
    As the top drawing indicates, the leading (N) pole of the armature is
repelled by the north poles of the two adjacent magnets. But, at the
indicated position of the armature magnet, these two repulsive forces
.(which obviously work against each other), are not identical; the stronger
of the two forces (double dashed line) overpowers the other force and tends
to move the armature to the left. This left movement is enhanced by the
attraction force between the armature north pole and the stator south pole
at the bottom of the space between the stator magnets.
    But that's not all! Let's see what is happening simultaneously at the
other end (S) of the armature magnet. The length of this magnet (about 3+1/8
inches) is chosen, in relation to the pairs of stator in magnets plus the
space between them, so that once again the attraction/repulsion forces work
to move the armature magnet to the left. In this case the armature pole (S)
is attracted by the north surfaces of the adjacent stator magnets but,
because of the critical armature dimensioning, more strongly by the magnet
(double solid line) that tends to "pull" the armature to the left. It
overpowers the lesser "drag" effect of the stator magnet to the right. Here
also there is the added advantage of, in this case, repulsion force between
the south pole of the armature and the south pole in the space between the
stator magnets.
    The importance of correct dimensioning of the armature magnet cannot be
over-emphasized. If it is either too long or too short, it could achieve an
undesirable equilibrium condition that would stall movement. The objective
is to optimize all force conditions to develop the greatest possible
off-balance condition, but always' in the same direction as the armature
magnet moves along the row of stator magnets. However, if the armature is
rotated 180 degrees and started at the opposite end of the track, it would
behave in exactly the same manner except that it would, in this example,
move from left to right. Also note that once the armature is in motion, it
has momentum that helps carry it into the sphere of influence of the next
pair of magnets where it gets another push and pull, and additional
momentum. 

Complex Forces. Some very complex magnetic forces are obviously at play in
this deceptively simple magnetic system, and at this time it is impossible
to develop a mathematical model of what actually occurs. However, computer
analysis of the system, conducted by Professor William Harrison and his
associates at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Blacksburg, Va.), provide
vital feedback information that greatly helps in the effort to optimize
these complex forces to achieve the most efficient possible operating
design.
    As Professor Harrison points out, in addition to the obvious interaction
between the two poles of the armature magnet and the stator magnets, many
other interactions are in play. The stator magnets affect each other and the
support plate. Magnet distances and their strengths vary despite best
efforts of manufacturers to exercise quality controls. In the assembly of
the working model, there are inevitable differences between horizontal and
vertical air spaces. All these interrelated factors must be optimized, which
is why computer analysis in this refinement stage is vital. It's a kind of
information feedback system. As changes are made in the physical design,
fast dynamic measurements are made to see whether the expected results have
actually been achieved. The 'new computer data is then used to develop new
changes in the design of the experimental model. And so on, and on.
    That very different magnetic conditions exist at the two ends of the
armature is shown by the actual experimental data displayed in the table and
associated graph. To obtain this information, the researchers first passed
the probe of an instrument used to measure magnetic field strengths over the
stator magnets and the intervening spaces. We shall call this the "Zero"
level although there is a very tiny gap between the probe and the tops of
the stator magnets. These measurements in effect indicate what each pole of
the armature magnet "sees" below as it passes over. the stator magnets.
    Next the probe is moved to a position just beneath one of the armature
poles, at the top of the 3/8-inch armature-to-stator air gap. Another set of
magnetic flux measurements is made. The procedure is repeated with the probe
positioned just beneath the other armature pole.
    Now "Instinct" might suggest, and correctly so, that the flux
measurements at the top and bottom of the air gap will differ. But if
"instinct" also suggests that these differences are pretty much the same at
the two armature pole positions, you would be very much in error!
    First study the two tables that show actual flux density measurements.
Note that in this particular experiment the total magnetic flux amounted to
30,700 Gauss (the unit of magnetic strength) when the probe was held at the
"Zero" level under the north pole of the magnet, and a total of 28,700 Gauss
when the probe was moved to the top of the 3/8-inch air gap. The difference
between these total 'measurements is 2,000 Gauss.
    Similar readings made at the air gap between the south pole of the
armature and the stator magnets indicates a total flux at "Zero" level of
33,725 Gauss, and 24,700 Gauss at the top of the air gap. This time the
difference is a much larger 9,025 Gauss, or four and one half times greater
than for the north pole! Clearly, the magnetic force conditions are far from
identical at the two ends of the armature magnet.
    The middle five pairs of figures from each table hive been plotted in
graphic form to make these differences more obvious. In the top "South Pole"
graph the dashed line connects, the "Zero" level readings made over the
stator magnets and over the intervening air spaces. Points along the solid
line indicate comparable readings made with the probe just beneath the
armature south pole. It is easy to see that there is an average 43 percent
reduction of the attraction between the armature and stator magnets created
by the air gap. Equally true, but perhaps not so obvious, is the fact that
there is an average 36 percent increase of repulsion when the south pole of
the armature passes over the spaces between the stator magnets. The
percentage increase only seems smaller because it applies to a much smaller
"Zero" level value.
    The second graph shows that the changes are much less dramatic at the
north pole of the armature. In this case there's an average 11.7-percent
decrease of attraction over the spaces, and a 2.4 percent increase, of
repulsion when the armature north pole passes over the stator magnets.
    As you study the data, be sure to note that the columns are labeled
differently. In the case of the north pole data, the stator magnet areas
repulse the armature north pole while the spaces between the stator magnets
attract. The conditions are exactly the opposite for the south pole of the
armature magnet. When the south pole passes over a magnet, there is strong
attraction; when it passes over a space, there is repulsion. 

The Ultimate Motor. A motor based on Johnson's findings would be of
extremely simple design compared to conventional motors. As shown in the
diagrams developed from Johnson’s patent literature, the stator/base unit
would contain a ring of spaced magnets backed by a high magnetic
permeability sleeve. Three arcuate armature magnets would be mounted in the
armature which has a belt groove for power transmission. The armature is
supported on ball bearings on a shaft that either screws or slides into the
stator unit. Speed control and start/stop action would be achieved by the
simple means of moving the armature toward and away from the stator section.
    There is a noticeable pulsing action in the simple prototype units that
may be undesirable in a practical motor. The movement can be smoothed, the
inventor believes, by simply using two or more staggered armature magnets as
shown in another drawing. 

What’s Ahead? For inventor Howard Johnson and his permanent magnet power
source there's bound to be plenty of controversy, certainly, but also
progress. A 5000 watt electric generator powered by a permanent magnet motor
is already on the way, and Johnson has firm licensing agreements with at
least four companies at this writing.
    Will we see permanent magnet motors in automobiles in the near future?
Johnson wants nothing to do with Detroit at this time because, as he puts
it: "It’s too emotional - we’d get smashed into the earth!" The inventor is
equally reluctant to make predictions about other applications as well,
mainly because he just wants time to perfect his ideas and, hopefully, get
the scientific establishment to at least consider his unorthodox ideas with
a more open mind.
    For example, Johnson argues that the magnetic forces in a permanent
magnet represent superconductance that is akin to phenomena normally
associated only with extremely cold superconducting systems. He argues that
a magnet is a room temperature superconducting system because the electron
flow does not cease, and because this electron flow can be made to do work.
And for those who pooh- pooh the idea that permanent magnets do work,
Johnson has an answer: "You come along with a magnet and pick up a piece of
iron, then some physicist says you didn't do any work because you used that
magnet. But you moved a mass through a distance. Right? That's work that
requires energy. Or you can hold one magnet in the air indefinitely by
positioning it over another magnet with like poles facing. The physicist
will argue that because it involves magnetic repulsion, no work is done. Yet
if you support the same object with air, they will agree in a minute that
work is done!"
    There's no doubt in Johnson's mind that he has succeeded in extracting
usable energy from the atoms of permanent magnets. But does that imply that
the electron spins and associated phenomena that he thinks provide this
power will eventually be used up? Johnson makes no pretense of knowing the
answer: I didn't start the electron spins, and I don't know an way to stop
them - do you? They may eventually stop, but that is not my problem."
    Johnson still has many practical problems to solve to perfect his
invention. But his greater challenge may be to win general acceptance of his
ideas by an obviously nervous scientific community in which many physicists
remain compulsive about defending the law of Conservation of Energy without
ever wondering whether that "law" really needs defending.
    The dilemma facing Johnson is not really his dilemma but rather that of
other scientists who have observed his prototypes. The devices obviously do
work. But the textbooks say it shouldn’t work. And all that Johnson is
really saying to the scientific community is this: here is a phenomenon
which seems to contradict some of our traditional beliefs. For all our sakes
let’s not dismiss it outright but take the time to understand the complex
forces at work here. 





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 20:08:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA29693;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:07:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:07:36 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:59:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981217225928.21249E-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"iTOg43.0.sF7.8KTUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25395
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:58:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: MKSBoysal aol.com, John Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Cc: free E <freenrg-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR



	Dear M.,

	Did you personally see an operational self running rotary 'motor'?

	What were the rpms and was it running under load?   Did you see 
it run and turn a generator and light a lamp or produce other work?

				JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 21:10:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16044;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:09:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:09:42 -0800
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <7be0490d.3679e2bd aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:06:05 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Eq6d1.0.cw3.MEUUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25396
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

Can a neutron ionize  a gas atom by just physically knocking  an electron off?

Bob

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 17 23:19:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA22594;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:19:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:19:02 -0800
Message-ID: <367A01BA.5BA3BFAF earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:18:19 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: first post on Miley, Mizuno  10.9.96
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------7F7760C040CAA2BF04AC98F4"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cJjK5.0.yW5.c7WUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25397
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.
--------------7F7760C040CAA2BF04AC98F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:    Miley, Mizuno data: SIMS causes nuclear reactions
     Date:    Wed, 09 Oct 1996 11:10:59 -0700
       From:  Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall earthlink.net
 Wednesday, Oct. 9, 1996

Richard T. Murray, M.A., Room For All

At 2 AM Saturday morning, Oct. 5, I found George H. Miley's fine paper,
"Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Fim Nickel Coatings Undergoing
lectrolysis," in my mailbox.  [g-miley uiuc.edu, Fusion Studies
Laboratory, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 103 S. Goodwin Avenue,
Urbana, IL 61801-2984,  217-333-3772, fax 217-333-2906]

I have done little in the last four days but study Miley's 37-page
report.  Miley will present more, along with co-workers, in a week at
the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion in Japan on October
13-18.

I suggest that his data indicates that a main instrument SIMS (Secondary

Ion Mass Spectrometry) itself generates a variety of cold fusion
reactions, greatly complicating the picture, but offering a wonderful
new experimental approach.  I will start with a general theoretical
paradigm, then discuss the relevant anomalies in the data, give a
summary of his experiment, discuss possible reactions, and briefly
outline similar issues in Mizuno's data.

Three weeks ago at the Second Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference,
adjacent to but at least not directly contaminating the campus of Texas
A&M University at College Station, Texas, a rough working consensus
merged from a number of studies:

A high level of loading of hydrogen or deuterium into metal results in
nuclear transmutations that produce dozens of elements in new isotopic
ratios, relatively low and even at times no excess heat, very little
radiation, and very few, if any, radionuclides.  In Miley's run, over
40% of a 650 A nickel film is thus transmuted in two weeks by a gentle
electrolyis with water and lithium sulfate solution.  These experiments
and results are relatively easy, and being shown by many laboratories.
Impurities and purity play a critical role, pro and con.  The cathode
metal becomes rough and pitted, with up to 10 E5 10-micron spots per cm2

(Mizuno).  Along with products that might be made by exothermic (heat
releasing) reactions, heavy elements like Ag and Cd, which take up
energy to be produced, are produced by some endothermic (negative
Q-value) reactions.

At the end of his paper, Miley suggests:

"A postulated reaction model, RIFEX (Reaction In a Film-Excited
CompleX), is under development to satisfy these key characteristics.  A
major feature of RIFEX is that protons (p) interacting with the host Ni
and neighboring isotopes produces a relatively long lived atom-p complex

with excitation energies of orders of several Mev.  This allows
production of elements such as Ag with -Q reactions.  Other products are

produced  by +Q reactions via fission of compound nuclei..."

I like this!  I wonder whether the "relatively long lived atom-p
complex"  might be as large as a single host metal crystal grain, so
that if a single grain becomes critically charged with p, suddenly the
whole grain becomes a new type of unified nuclear system, in which the
myriads of nuclei can interact collectively and coherently en masse with

virtually no barriers to super-efficiently achieve a very well balanced
soup of products, so that with no imbalances left over, there are no
radionuclides, no radiation, and relatively low left-over heat.  The
output mix of products should vary enormously from event to event!!!

The host metal lattice grain, the prolific mother of this lively but
well-behaved brood, would, vibrating with phonons, expand with heat,
perhaps melting, boiling, and vaporizing, thus putting an end to the
collective reaction process.  If this end is premature, then the
products will be likewise unbalanced, exhibiting more heat, radiation,
and radionuclides.  The collective reaction process would otherwise end
itself by consumption of reactants and buildup of toxic products. In
this environment, fragile excited, metastable species would florish, and

previously unknown stable products might ensue.  Would such a
nonequilibrium environment, rather like the energy saturated levels in a

lasing system, support new modes of neutrino production?

Well!  It's time to invoke the most powerful metaprinciple of
theoretical physics:  "What is not prohibited, is mandatory."  If cold
fusion reactions are not prohibited, and the evidence is now
incontrovertible on this point, then they must be mandatory, that is,
common and ubiquitous.

Therefore we might well be suspicious about SIMS, which focuses an 8-keV

beam of positive oxygen (O+) ions right into the host metal, making a
micron-scale crater, releasing a vapor of constituents which are
promptly  analyzed in detail in a mass spectrograph.  Haven't we heard
of something like this recently...oh yes, Thomas Claytor at Los Alamos
National Laboratory-- he runs a 2,000 volt deuterium gas discharge onto
a  thin palladium wire and gets a steady production of tritium.  Been
doing
it for years.

Ummmm, 8-keV beam of O+ ions on surface of host metal...much achieve
high degree of loading instantly, in that little-micron size crater...
Must be low energy nuclear reactions going on... Must be baffling
mixture of elements already in host metal plus the instant nuclear
transformation reactions with O+ and each other just prior to melting,
boiling, and vaporization...Effect must be stronger with higher voltage,

ion mass, and current...Any evidence, guys?

Well, I have in hand Figure 3a from Miley's paper, something rare in
physics reports,  exact data before the experiment: "SIMS scan of a
fresh microsphere, Typical low resolution SIMS scan (before the run),
with Mass (amu) from 1 to 279 in a line 12 cm long at the bottom, and, 5

cm high on the left, Secondary Ion Count, from 1.00E+00 to 1.00E+07,
seven orders of magnitude, with data for each isotope ranging from 1 to
~4,000 counts.  I dug into that one with a powerful magnifier for hours,

until I thought of xeroxing it bigger 150% and then 125%.

What's this?  Only about 6 to 60 counts for Ni 58, 60, and 62, our host
metal, pure and pristine, whose isotopic abundances are 68 %, 26 %, and
4 %...Holy macquerel!  About 4,000 counts for Na23, and over 50 for C12
and  Al27, and over 5 for C13, Mg25, and K39.  Where does this
light-weight fluff come from, if not the SIMS measurement process
itself?

Ta-ta!  Figure 3b: "Typical low resolution SIMS scan after the run
(average of microspheres in 3 layers)".  Ooooo, I hate averages!  So
much  enticing detail gets smoothed over.  Reality is not average.  But
look!

A whole New York City skyline of peaks...But!  No C12 and no C13 and no
K39.  Na23 is down to ~800, while Mg 25 is up to ~300.  The highest peak

is Fe56 at ~4,000, just like Na23 used to be.  What gives?  Hypothesis
(guess) is that the SIMS reaction products of course are quite different

now that the nickel is over 40 % transmuted into a jumble of elements.

Miley does not in this paper deal with the remarkable Na23 peak in Fig.
3a and 3b.  I noticed this comment, in parenthesis, on page 14:

"(Light elements, still under study, and other isotopes not observed are

omitted from Table 3.)  I suspect that the SIMS reactions produce more
puzzling data anomalies in the range lighter than Si28.  Table 3 lists
82 stable isotopes from Si28 Pb208: "Data sheet for change in isotope
atom % in metal film after run; comparison to natural abundance (Data
from SIMS..."

Miley comments: "Interpretation of the SIMS count data of Fig. 3
requires a knowledge of sensitivities (RSF values) for sputtering of
each isotope out of the host matrix by the SIMS's primary beam (Wilson
et al, 1989)."



Well, I wrote a long post Sept. 24, analyzing the Correa Pulsed Abnormal

Gas Discharge device, pointing out that its severe cathode erosion was
due to spots of nuclear transmutation reactions.  I concluded by
admitting that for me the word "sputter" is becoming code for,
"unrecognized nuclear transmutations".  Incidentally, Miley's beads were

coated, "using a special sputtering process."  What voltages and what
gases, I ask, and what if inadvertant nuclear reactions already have
affected the "fresh" nickel  film beads?

"Recently, several sets of microspheres (run about 4 months earlier)
were exposed to high-speed ASA film for a 4-day period with positive
results as shown in Fig. 6 (Klema, 1996).  Unfortunately these
experiments are not yet reproducible.  A second positive exposure has
been obtained, but three additional attempts failed.  The technique is
under study, and if verified, will demonstrate emission of low-energy
beta rays or soft x-rays (estimated to be of the order of 20-keV for the

geometry of Fig. 6)."  Individual microspheres were taped to a plate and

put on the film, and also a 0.75" diameter vial containing beads was
inverted with its plastic cap on the film.  The exposed region is like a

2.5" X 1" puddle, .5" from the .75" X .25" cloud from the beads on the
plate.  If radon gas was in the vial, would it diffuse out slowly and
activate the near-by beads?  Were these beads ever subjected to SIMS
testing?

With the invaluable help of James A. Patterson [Clean Energy Technology,

Inc., ceti onramp.net, One Lincoln Center, 5400 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 950,
Dallas, TX 75240, 214-982-8340, 214-982-8349],  Miley replicated the
Patterson Power Cell, completing 20 runs, all successful:

"M. Williams of UI was responsible for microsphere coating...1-mm glass
and plastic microspheres...a special sputtering process...The present

   * paper deals with the specific case of a single nickel thin film,
     sinceit has been analyzed most thoroughly to date and appears to
     berepresentative of the behavior observed in the other runs...this
     run (#8)...A 650-A-thick Ni film was laid down by sputtering the Ni
     on to a 1-mm plastic core...surface area (~32 cm2) ...1-molar
     lithium sulfate solution in light water...two-week electrolytic
     run...Fe, Ag, Cu, Mg,and Cr, in concentrations exceeding 2 atom %
     each, plus a number of additional trace elements...about 1000
     microspheres (~0.5 cm3 volume) were used in the packed-bed
     cell...roughly 3-5 layers...Titanium electrodes...about 100 cm E3
     electrolyte vs. 3 X 10E-4 cm3 film for 1000 microspheres...flow
     rates of ~11 ml/min...voltages across the bed were held at ~2-3 V,
     with several mA of current, giving an input electrical power of
     aproximately 0.06 W...temperature increase...ranged from 0.1 to 4
     degrees C,  corresponding to 0.1 to 4 W output, depending on the
     films used...Positive outputs were observed in all cases...only
     considered to be accurate to +- 0.4 W..."Loading of hydrogen into
     the thin film is typically done at low (~25 degrees C) temperatures
     and requires several hours, as observed by an initial increase in
     the voltage across the bed, i.e., the change in film resistance,
     followed by an eventual equilibrium voltage level of +2-3 V. The
     loading time...was about an hour for the present Ni run...strong
     evidence presented by others that loadings in excess of 0.85 atoms
     of hydrogen or deuterium (H/D) per atom Pd are required in
     conventional solid Pd electrodes to produce heat...After
     equilibrium was achieved, the cell inlet temperature was raised
     slowly (over several hours) to thedesired operating temperature of
     60-70 degrees C...The run lasted for 310 hours and employed an
     entering electrolyte temperature of approximately 60 degrees C.
     Termination of the run was made prior to any noticeable
     deterioration of thermal performance...The cell employed for the
     run used all plastic fittings with the exception of the pressure
     and flow meters and the pump...a filter fitted with 0.8-micron pore
     size filter paper..."

[summary of Table 1:

 sphere diameter 1.06E-01 cm, volume 6.22E-04 cc, mass 6.09E-04 g

 Ni(650A) per sphere                 2.29E-07          2.04E-06
[# of atoms 2.09E+16]

"Some erosion of small particles from the surface during
operation...Concurrently, various fragile looking bead-like and
fiber-like structures are typically visible on the film surface after
electrolysis...microspheres from the top (cathode end) layer of the
packed bed...

"The SIMS analysis employed a Cameca IMS 5F unit operating with 8-keV
oxygen primary beam in the positive ion mode...Scans of key isotopes
were made using single microspheres in a low-resolution (2,000 mass
resolution) mode at several depths of interest (typically near the
surface and interfaces) (See Fig 3a.)  High-resolution (40,000 mass
resolution) scans were then done to resolve any interferences involving
important isotopes (e.g., see Cu-63 and Ag-107 in Fig. 3b).  Although
the SIMS gives the relative amounts of isotopes for a given element
accurately, the variation of isotopes with depth and the lack of
reference samples for calibration of the SIMS sensitivity made it
difficult to determine absolute concentrations of isotopes with this
technique alone...Interpretation of the SIMS count data of Fig. 3  [3a
and 3b]  requires a knowledge of sensitivities (RSF values) for
sputtering of each isotope out of the host matrix by the SIMS's primary
beam...Depth profiles were also run with the SIMS, but the higher
sputtering rates for SIMS greatly limited the spatial resolution in the
thin film."

Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno  [Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, Hokkaido
University, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060, Japan, 81-11-706-6689,
fax 81-11-706-7835, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp]
spoke at the recent LENR Conference, and his report is in
Infinite Energy magazine, Mr-Ap, 96, 2(7)10-13: "Anomalous
Isotopic Distribution in Palladium Cathode after Electrolysis."

Palladium rods, 1 cm X 10 cm, were run in heavy water with LiOH for 32
days at 105 degrees C at 6.6 A, a current density of 0.2 A/cm2, with Pt
anode, in a closed stainless steel cell with an inner lining of 1 mm
Teflon:

"Typical counts by EDX and SIMS ranged from 10E2 to 10E6 and were 10 to
100 times higher than the background counts.  Thus, the presence of Ca,
Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sn, Pt and Pb were confirmed.  AES and
SIMS measurements were also made after bombardment by Ar+ or O2- ions,
thus removing surface layers, but the element concentrations at 1 micron

below the electrode surface were almost the same as at the surface. Many

holes and cracks were observed in the bulk layer, having 1 to 10 micron
opening size...The SIMS count numbers ranged from 10E3 to 10E6...The
intensity of Xe was 10 times larger than Pd; it may be that the gas was
released by bombardment with O2- ions which caused a temperature rise in

the sample...Large differences in isotopic distributions... were
observed by the SIMS method for Cu, Zn, Br, Xe, Pd, Cd, Hf, Re, Pt, Ir
and Hg...Fe and Cu showed large shifts in isotopic ratios...no Cu65 peak

was observed...Cd and Xe were shown to have large shifts in
abundances...large shifts were seen for Hf, Re, Ir, Os, and Hg...The
neutron evolution rate was sporadic and weak,...with levels of ~0.4
counts per second.  No gases such as He, O2 and Ar were detected.
Excess heat generation was less reproducible, varying from 10E5 to 10E7
joules...Essentially the same phenomenon was confirmed five times with
high reproducibility at high cathodic current density, above 0.2 A/cm2.
Current density ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 A/cm2.  Different isotope
distributions were obtained, depending on the current density...The
palladium surface became rough and porous after several weeks of
electrolysis, probably due to hydrogen attack...on the
surface...accumulated in holes and cracks on the electrode which formed
during the electrolysis...light elements such as O, C, Ca, Na, and Al
showed small isotopic shifts [note by Murray:  Na and Al have only one
stable
isotope]..."

Fig. 2 shows SIMS measurements that show Xe tenfold greater
concentrations than Pd, and both C and O at the same concentration.
Mizuno does not discuss the remarkable C and O levels at all.

SIMS bombardment by the O2- ion beam could generate many of the
observed isotopes, according to my recent guesses:

Pd106  +  O16   =>  Xe122    ,
Pd108  +  O16   =>  Xe124    ,
2 Pd108  +  O16  =>  2 Sn116 ,
4 Pd108  +  O16  =>  4 Cd112 ,
3 Pd110  +  O16  =>  Xe136  +  Cd112  +  2 Ti22  ,
Pd110  +  Pd105  +  2 O16  =>  Xe129  +  Cu63  +  Mn25   .

These are all isotopes found by Mizuno.  Note that his SIMS measurements

produced heat and copious Xe.  If, as he suggests, Pt from the anode is
deposited on the Pd cathode, we might have:

4 Pt196  +  O16  =>  4  Hg200   ,
2 Pt198  +  O16  =>  2  Pb206   ,
4 Pt190  +  O16  =>  4 Xe136  + 4 Fe58   .

These suggestions illustrate the wonderful combinations that would be
available in a mutually reacting soup of nuclei.  The more varied the
available constituents, the easier it is to balance the equations.

Pd102  +  Pd106  =>  Cd108  +  2 Ti50   .

Returning to Miley's paper, I noticed in Fig. 3b, "High Resolution SIMS
scan for Cu(63) after the run,"  another peak, 1/3 height, at ~8 counts,

just to the right at 62.955 amu, and wondered if it might be a
double-charged ion of Te126, which has mass 125.9033 amu.

Fig. 3c, "High Resolution SIMS scan for Ag(107) after the run," shows a
peak at 106.93, while Ag107 should be just to its left at 106.905.

Perhaps it is a doubly charged ion of Pb214, mass 213.9998, with a
half-life 26.9 minutes.

Both these graphs show that SIMS counts are generating detailed peaks at

the range 1 to 10, so we can take more interest in the tinier peaks in
Fig. 3a, the "fresh" film.  There are peaks at ~2 counts for Mg 25,
Ca44, and Ca46 (which might also be Ti46).

Peaks exist at ~2  counts for Br81 and Kr 83, and ~3 counts at 213 amu.

The CRC Handbook lists 9 radionuclides for 213 amu.  Pb213, at 21.9966
amu,  has the longest half-life, 10.2 min, giving off e-.  Was the SIMS
somehow making and recording this item?

I got much more fascinated with 213 amu, when I remembered that I had
heard of an unknown isotope with 212.8 amu on Sept. 12.  It was reported

by Dr. Barry Merriman, [UCLA Dept. of Math, 405 Hilgrad Ave., Los
Angeles, CA 90095-1555, 310-206-2679, barry math.ucla.edu], as found in
a mass spectrographic study of products from one of Joe Champion's
recipes,  run by Dan York, [2415 Hillglenn Road, Dallas, TX 75228,
214-327-5168, danyork iadfw.net], who told me.  Na and K salts were
electrolized with Hg, evolving much heat at times.  The sulfide
precipitate had no Hg at all, no zirconium, about 1 % each of hafnium at

178.9, gold at 196.9, and molybdenum 93.9, about 5 % Cesium 139.9, and 5

to 10 % of the mystery at  212.8 amu.

I then tinkered around with my trusty CRC Handbook, and found that Br81
(80.916 amu) plus Xe132 (131.905 amu) combined to an atomic number 89
with mass 212.821.  There were many such combinations, all hopelessly
unstable.  I also noted Kr83 (82.914 amu) with Tc130 (129.906 amu) gave
an atomic number 88 with mass 212.820.  So I was impressed Monday when I

noticed the correlations with the little blips on Miley's fresh bead
data.

After some time, I tried dividing 212.8 by 3 and got 70.93 amu, and soon

matched that with 31,Ga71 (70.925 amu), and doubling that led to
58,Ce142 (141.909 amu) and  60,Nd142 (141.908 amu), and they both
combine to give back 212.83.  So now maybe I have some sort of isotopic
triplet?  Maybe a stable resonance nucleus exists at 212.8 amu?

Now, if 31,Ga71 and 60,Nd142 are a pair, and they continually exchange
two neutrons to somehow create a bond, then that pair would turn into
31,Ga69 and 60,Nd144, which are also nice and stable.  If that pair in
turn continually exchanges an alpha particle 2,He4,  then their next
resonant partners would be the pair 29,Cu65 with 62,Sm148, both stable.

Am I boring you?  If you're reading enough of this to be bored, I'm
grateful.  I've recently seen too many cases of scientists letting
wonderful bits of data slip through their fingers, their minds firmly
fixed on the task at hand.

These suggestions can give data from Miley's "fresh" bead:

2 Ni58  +  2 Ni64  +  Ni61  =>  Ca46  + 19C13  + C12   ,
Ni62  +  2 O16  =>  Ti46  +  Ca44  + He4, with a .00746 amu energy gain,

and, since: 2 Na23  =>  Ti46,  we also have:
Ni62  +  2 O16  =>  2 Na23  +  Ca44  +  He4.  Remember all that Na23
measured on that "fresh" bead?  There's also:
Ni60  + 2 O16  =>  2 Ti46 plus .06802 amu energy.

It helps to recall that:
2 C12  =>  Mg24   and  C12  +  C13  =>  Mg25 .  So then there's:
Ni64  + 2 C12  =>  Si28  +  Fe58  .  We can write all kinds of stuff:
Ni62  +  O16  +  C12  =>  Ca44  +  Ti46  .

Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy may be the key to not only measuring
cold fusion reactions, but to creating them, precisely and instantly,
with any host metal and any ion beam at any voltage and intensity, with
all products recorded and measured instantly.  Research could be
automated, as a computer controlled SIMS cold fusion reactor could
create reaction spots in a precise grid at a linear density of a roomy
200 10-micron spots per cm, with 40 microns spacing edge to edge: that
is, 40,000 per cm2, at a rate of over 10E3 per second, varying the
conditions systematically for each spot.  Any takers?  A PhD thesis in a

minute?

Rich Murray


--------------7F7760C040CAA2BF04AC98F4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------7F7760C040CAA2BF04AC98F4--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 09:19:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01816;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:18:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:18:59 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:10:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
cc: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Christmas presents
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981218120417.11898B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"M2aQz3.0.ES.2weUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25398
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Folks,

	I am building a few ELF VLF front ends for detecting sferic and 
whistlers and so on.  Basically two types, although a hybrid can be 
produced if desired;
	1] input is coil or inductor.... which can be shielded for a 
magnetic and-or EM sensing ... if electrostatically shielded the you get 
the magnetic component, mostly.
	2] charge ... or electrostatic.
	These are built up one at a time, by hand, and usually customized 
to user's needs.  Not cheap, but work well.... these are high end gizmos!  
Buy your mad scientist a present, and help me to continue research!  I 
also build some low end ones... good for starting out.
	Contact me off line if interested.
	Other detector and transducers per request...

		JS
				

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 11:34:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20208;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:32:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:32:13 -0800
Message-ID: <367A7DEF.E63162A3 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:08:15 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Merriman: early critique of Miley report  11.14.96
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------E0227F064462333A795BD878"
Resent-Message-ID: <"8ICWu3.0.gx4.zsgUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25399
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.
--------------E0227F064462333A795BD878
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:   Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's claims
 Resent-Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:42:37 -0800 (PST)
 Resent-From:    vortex-l eskimo.com
        Date:   Thursday 14 Nov 1996 00:42:21 -0800
        From:   Barry Merriman <barry math.ucla.edu>
    Reply-To:  vortex-l eskimo.com
 Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
          To:  vortex-l eskimo.com
          References:  1
[Quote from end of Merriman's post:
However, I would like to point out an anomaly
in fig 3a,b: in fig 3a, the mass spec of a fresh bead, the
spectrum is sparse as expected, and one clearly sees what must
be the Nickel as 3 isolated peaks at 58, 60 and 62. However,
the ratios of peak heights for natural nickel are 19:7:1
for those isotopes. Clearly, in the figure the ratios are
about 2:1.7:1---way off from natural nickel. In fact, his
natural, unused Nickel is more anomalous than any isotopes listed
for his used beads! So, what is one to make of that?]

Russ George wrote:

> The idea proposed by Blue that Miley was off in his id of masses
and
> mistook Ca for Ti is pretty far out. Any SIMS instrument running
that
> poorly calibrated would be down for repairs or the operator would
> have to be.

I'm not sure that is Blue's claim.

DB's primary claims would see to be correct:

1) In Miley's huge table of SIMS data, #3, the column which
contains the observed abundances in reacted beads would seem to
be completely in error for Silicon. The data there are:


Element      # of atoms       implied abundances   natural abund.
Si28         3.02E17          4.67E-01              92%
Si29         2.04E16          3.55E-01               5%
Si30         1.02E16          1.78E-01               3%

Now, one sees an obvious error: the abundances above do
not follow if one works it out straight from the data. Using
the data given, one gets 93%, 6% and 3%, very close
to natural. In fact, it almost looks like whoever
made the table accidentally used Si28 at 3.02E*16* instead of the
given 3.02E*17* (this gives 49%, 33$ and 16%). But this is not
likely to have been the intention, since the *unused* microsphere
had 8e16 atoms of Si28 in it, so 3e16 would have meant a substantial
loss of total Si from the spheres.

2) DB's other major claim is that Miley missadentified
Cr50 as Ti50. Again in the big table 3, Ti50 (abundance naturally of 5%)

shows up with 4.34E14 atoms and an observed abundance of
82% in the used beads, a **massive** deviation from natural.
In fact, this is the largest deviation observed! Yet, for some reason,

(a) the most common natural Ti isotope, Ti48 (74%) is left
out of the table completely, even though all the less common
isotopes (Ti46/47/49/50 with abundances 8%/7%/6%/5%) are not
only included, but all present in the used beads (and absent
totally in fresh beads). Also, bear in mind that the anode was made
of Ti,  so some some would highly suspect some natural Ti
to make its way to the cathode in a 300 hour run.

(b) Cr is present in both the fresh spheres and reacted spheres
in sizable amounts, and in particular the least common Cr isotope,
Cr54(2%) is detected both before and after. Yet there is no
entry in the table for the much more common Cr isotope Cr50 (4%).
The reacted beads have the CR isotopes somewhat out of natural
abundance (observed % - natural % = -0.5--3%).

(c) the least common Ti isotope, Ti50 (5%) is present at 10x
the level of all the other Ti isotopes, quite anomalous. On the
other hand, Cr 50 is absent from the table completely. If one
computes based on the abundance of Cr 50 and the observed amount
of the most common istope Cr 52 (84%, 1.07E17 atoms in used beads)
the expected amount of CR 50, it comes out to be 5.4E15 atoms.
There are observed instead 4.3E15 Ti 50 atoms, a reasonable match.
If one takes these atoms and calls them Cr 50, all the sudden
the Cr looks very natural--the abundances fall into place.
(83.9%,10.7%,2.0% for Cr52,53,54, and Cr 50 at 3.4%, vs
natural of 84%,10%,2%,4%).

(d) Even if Ti50 is not really Cr50, it appears that the Cr
abundances are off simply because Cr50 is not included in the
table at all. If one puts in the expected amount of Cr 50 based
on the listed amounts of other Cr istopes, the CR looks natural.

(3) Blue also takes issue with the mass spec graphs, figs
3a, 3b, since they show elements not listed in the table 3, like Ca.
But I think there it probably has to do with data from different
experiments. However, I would like to point out an anomaly
in fig 3a,b: in fig 3a, the mass spec of a fresh bead, the
spectrum is sparse as expected, and one clearly sees what must
be the Nickel as 3 isolated peaks at 58, 60 and 62. However,
the ratios of peak heights for natural nickel are 19:7:1
for those isotopes. Clearly, in the figure the ratios are
about 2:1.7:1---way off from natural nickel. In fact, his
natural, unused Nickel is more anomalous than any isotopes listed
for his used beads! So, what is one to make of that?

All in all, I think there are clearly:

(1) a big error in the table, which when corrected makes the
large Si signal look like natural Si, probably a glass contaminant.

(2) A lot of funny stuff going on with the reporting of Ti and
Cr data, two of the most anomalous listing in the table. This
definitely requires some straightening out before one can
say what is going on with these elements.

(3) deviations from natural abundance in the "before" low
res SIMS figures that need some explaining.

Bottom line: I think you can see why scientists normally
demand peer review for published work.
--
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
email: barry math.ucla.edu   homepage:
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry




--------------E0227F064462333A795BD878
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------E0227F064462333A795BD878--



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 11:34:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20718;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:33:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:33:01 -0800
Message-ID: <367A831E.AE5C24E6 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:30:22 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Merriman: my error re Miley Ni data  11.15.96
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------84B0A361C1646F94A619CB0C"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KgFWV.0.a35.itgUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25400
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.
--------------84B0A361C1646F94A619CB0C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:     Re: Miley's calorimetry much better than he
 Resent-Date:  Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:37:57 -0800 (PST)
 Resent-From:  vortex-l eskimo.com
        Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:00:01 -0800
        From:   Barry Merriman <barry math.ucla.edu>
    Reply-To:  vortex-l eskimo.com
 Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
          To:   vortex-l eskimo.com
  References:   1

Jed Rothwell wrote:

> 1. Always start by asking the author. I faxed Barry's summary of
Blue's
> comments to George Miley. Barry should've done that in the first
place, except
> he probably knows that George is in Washington and he probably
didn't feel
> like waiting.

Yes, that is one reason. The other is I wanted to get other people's
comments on my comments, and also finish up some other comments
I have, and submit them to Miley in one coherent batch.

For example, in the comments you sent to Miley, there is my
question about the Ni abundances in fig 3a, which don't seem
natural. But, that was entirely my error! The plot is on
a log scale :-0! Thus the Nickel isotopes shown  seem
to in their natural abundances.

However, this raises two other points:

(1)  mass spec data is usually shown on a linear scale, not a log
scale, so that is a little tricky on the eye.

(2) given that it is a log scale, we expect to see
the peaks for the rarer forms of Ni (61   1%, 64 @ 1%), yet
there are no peaks for these isotopes. It appears
1% just happens to fall below the vertical threshold of the graph for
Ni, unfortunately, which is not a very good detection range for a SIMS.
(or, in other words, they don't make good use of their vertical axis
space on the graph).

In any case, I fully plan to raise these various points with Miley
shortly. I suspect he is overwhelmed right now though.
--
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
email: barry math.ucla.edu   homepage:
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry





--------------84B0A361C1646F94A619CB0C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------84B0A361C1646F94A619CB0C--



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 14:42:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13176;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:41:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:41:03 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981218164015.00a1d09c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:40:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
In-Reply-To: <7be0490d.3679e2bd aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"tqNKe2.0.oD3.-djUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25401
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 00:06 12/18/98 EST, BriggsRO aol.com wrote:

>Can a neutron ionize  a gas atom by just physically knocking  an electron
off?

I don't think so...at least not very often.  According to my sources, a
neutron travels effortlessly thru matter until it "collides" with a
nucleus.  In solid steel it will go some 5 cm before the FIRST such
collision...which certainly dramatizes the fact that ordinary matter is
mostly empty space.

Yesterday I succeeded in making a cloud chamber that works just great.  It
is the diffusion type...as opposed to the original expansion type invented
by Wilson.  The chamber consists of a clear plastic cylindrical vessel
about 17 cm dia and 15 cm tall.  I glued felt to the bottom (inside) of the
vessel and saturated it with isopropyl alchohol.  That assembly is then
inverted onto a black-painted Al base plate which is cooled (from the
underside) with dry ice (I arranged a spring to press the cake of dry ice
up against the Al base, which must be quite level to minimize track drift).
 The alcohol evaporates out of the felt and the vapor drifts straight down
and condenses on the cold Al plate.  After 10-15 minutes of operation, a 2
cm thick layer of cold supersaturated vapor forms just above the Al plate.
This is the active region.  

I broke off a small (~2mm) piece of a uranium mineral specimen and placed
it in the center of the chamber directly on the Al plate.  After 10-15
minutes, in a darkened room with side illumination from a strong
flashlight, you can see the most beautiful "fireworks display" around the
piece of ore.  Most the the tracks are about 2 cm long, very narrow at the
source and widening steadily until the end where they are maybe 3 mm wide.
I think these are alphas.  Rarely you see a very narrow ~5 cm long track
that does not widen noticeably....betas?

Background/cosmic rays are also noticeable.  Some of them appear to curve
smoothly thru ~90 degrees around a ~1 cm radius!?



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 Dec 18 15:29:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA27632;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:27:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:27:08 -0800
Message-ID: <04e901be2add$c3ebc4a0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Ron.Brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: neutrons in cloud chamber
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:25:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"e_gPF2.0.bl6.CJkUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25402
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:
>
>According to my sources, a neutron travels effortlessly >thru matter until
it "collides" with a nucleus.
>In solid steel it will go some 5 cm before the first such
>collision... which certainly dramatizes the fact that >ordinary matter is
mostly empty space.
>

I would say that it indicates that the neutron's radius is
orders of magnitude less than that of the 2.81E-15 radius
of the electron (roughly 7.66E18 meters)allowing it to go unimpeded through
the "string-circle" electron.

This also shows why electrons seem to "go through" a nucleus unless they are
relativistically "shrunk" at Gev
energies with machines like the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson Lab which have hair-thin beams operating at 4
Gev or so.

Hopefully, these are the experiments that will support
SuperString and the "Length-Only" String-Circle Particle Theory that I keep
harping about.   :-)

But, a head-on collision between a neutron and a 4.5E-18 meter radius proton
(although chancey)happens frequently enough to give a proton track in a
cloud chamber.

Regards,  Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 15:35:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA31119;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:33:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:33:49 -0800
Message-ID: <04f801be2ade$b1dcdaa0$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Jefferson Lab (http://www.jlab.org/)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:32:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE2AA3.FB5F1160"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"jxrCQ3.0.9c7.SPkUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25403
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_007D_01BE2AA3.FB5F1160
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fast Electrons; relativistic gamma about 8000.

http://www.jlab.org/

------=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE2AA3.FB5F1160
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Jefferson Lab.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Jefferson Lab.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.jlab.org/
Modified=A0884C71DE2ABE01AC

------=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE2AA3.FB5F1160--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 17:59:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10049;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:58:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:58:10 -0800
Message-ID: <367B086B.53C7274E earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:59:07 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: George: Radiationless Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion  3.19.98
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------8200D958DACDF7D61F280661"
Resent-Message-ID: <"1hZal.0.tS2.nWmUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25404
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.
--------------8200D958DACDF7D61F280661
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S4170002.html

--------------8200D958DACDF7D61F280661
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii;
 name="S4170002.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="S4170002.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S4170
	002.html"
Content-Location: "http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S4170
	002.html"

<HEAD><TITLE>Experimental Evidence of Radiationless Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion in Metal Deuterides</TITLE>
</HEAD>

<BODY bgcolor=#FFFFFF><center><A HREF=S4170001.html><img src=/images/back.gif border=0></A> <A HREF=G4170002.html><img src=/images/picture.gif border=0></A> <img src=/images/txt.gif border=0> <A HREF=S4170003.html><img src=/images/next.gif border=0></A><b
r></center><center><font size=-1><A HREF=S4170001.html>Previous abstract</A> | <A HREF=G4170002.html>Graphical version</A> | Text version | <A HREF=S4170003.html>Next abstract</A></font></center><P><B>Session U26 - General Physics.</B>
<BR><I>MIXED session, Thursday morning, March 19</I>
<BR><I>504, Los Angeles Convention Center</I>
<H2>[U26.02] <A HREF=S4170.html#SU26.002>Experimental Evidence of Radiationless Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion in Metal Deuterides</A></H2>
<I>Russ George (E-Quest Technologies, 3309 Alma St., Palo Alto, CA 94306)</I>
<P>

<P>In experiments conducted beginning in 1989 <A HREF=http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/sonof.html>we (http://
www.hooked.net/\sim \ rgeorge/sonof.html)</A> have observed 
anomalous heat production and associated helium isotope production from 
novel experiments using high energy ultrasound and associated cavitation to 
load deuterium and hydrogen into metal lattices to high stoichiometric ratios. 
Monitoring of the experiments, which produce tens to hundreds of watts of 
anomalous heat and 10 ^1^7 atoms of helium, for radiation (neutron and 
gamma) has revealed no penetrating emissions. 
Arata and Zhang(Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, Proc. Japan Acad. 73B), 1 (1997). have observed the 
same by-products, also with no high energy particles, in Pd powder that had 
been electrolytically loaded with D under pressures of 500-5000 atm. Both 
the ultrasonic and electrochemical methods described here are highly reproducible 
and repeatable techniques which readily produce these reactions upon demand. 
Many theories have tried to explain these phenomena including the theories 
of Scott and Talbot Chubb (S.R. Chubb and T.A. Chubb, talk presented 
this session.). 

<P>
<P><A HREF=../tocU.html#SU26.002><IMG SRC=/bitmaps/up.xbm></A> <B><A HREF=../tocU.html#SU26.002>Part U of program listing</A></B>
--------------8200D958DACDF7D61F280661
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------8200D958DACDF7D61F280661--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 18:38:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA21298;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:36:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:36:28 -0800
Message-ID: <367B1154.A15C4EA6 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:37:08 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Goerge: Micro Nuclear Explosions photos  Dec., 1996
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------BFE1C5B9507FBF7D48DF4929"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KHldo2.0.fC5.g4nUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25406
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.
--------------BFE1C5B9507FBF7D48DF4929
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/volcanoes.html

Photographic Evidence for  Micro Nuclear Explosions  (Sonofusion)
      in Thin Palladium Foils Induced
      by Intense Ultrasonic Cavitation     Russ George © Dec. 1996
             In experiments conducted by the author we regularly observe
destruction of
             palladium metal foils when exposed to intense transient
cavitation as a result of
             ultrasonic stimulation. Upon examination the metal foils
are found to have large
             apparently melted holes. Using scanning electron microscopy
with the assistance of
             Professor John Dash, Portland State University and electron
microscopists at
             Charles Evans and Associates we have examined these samples
and found
             extraordinary features which are not characteristic of any
reported form of
             cavitation damage. The features have the appearance of
"volcano like" ejecta fans
             and vents. We propose micro nuclear explosions some microns
deep in
             the foil  have  resulted in explosive cavities many microns
in diameter filled
             with superheated metal.
             Where these super hot regions have been near enough to the
surface of the foil they
             have erupted through the surface spewing molten and gaseous
metal. Additional
             evidence of the micro nuclear reactions is found in large
amounts of helium which is
             observed in the palladium metal following the experiments
(described in a separate
             paper.). The following photos and scanning electron
micrographs illustrate features
             at successively higher magnification.
             Photos and SEM Micrographs of Micro Nuclear
             Melting Effects on Palladium Foil
                               Pd target foil 5cm x 5cm x 0.1mm
                           Circular punches were taken as reference
                          samples before and after the experiment and
                            subjected to TEMS and density analysis
              This characteristic destruction of the foil and melting is
composed not of one but of
             countless thermal ejecta events. Over a time frame of
minutes to hours, depending
             on controlled experimental parameters the foil is destroyed
and the reactions halt.
             Various metals reveal different characteristic damage.

             Under scanning electron microscopy the small volcano like
craters which remain
             following an eruption of molten or gaseous metal are
readily
             found.     The  ejecta  event
             starts as the micro-nuclear event(s) produces an explosive
cavity within the lattice.
             The heat from the event producing the cavity must occur
very rapidly as the metal
             lattice can rapidly transfers heat to surrounding lattice
atoms and into the circulating
             water in which the reaction takes place. The hot atoms
nearest the explosion will
             either transport its heat to the surrounding lattice until
the lattice atoms re-solidify or
             the hot metal will break the surface of the lattice and
spring out as gaseous or
             molten ejecta. These events are captured in the following
SEM photos. Such ejecta
             are readily identified by their cone and fan shaped craters
radiating out from a
             cylindrical vent. The similarity with volcanic events on
geological landscapes is
             remarkable.

             Some ejecta craters or fans are often littered with tiny ~1
micron fused spheres of
             metal which have the appearance of sputtered metal. For a
sense of scale the
             bubbles which produce the driving force for the reactions
are smaller than these
             1micron spheres. The metal spheres can be observed to have
good contact
             with the metal as little electron charging is observed.
Other ejecta craters or fans
             are glassy smooth, an indication that the metal was ejected
at a very high
             temperature, either a gas or plasma.




--------------BFE1C5B9507FBF7D48DF4929
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------BFE1C5B9507FBF7D48DF4929--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 18:51:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24630;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:50:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:50:18 -0800
Message-ID: <367B14A2.6A097D91 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:51:14 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: George: He microbubbles in Pd  May, 1997
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------E7AA6088A9A85A58B0E47401"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JvkRe2.0.l06.fHnUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25407
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.
--------------E7AA6088A9A85A58B0E47401
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/HeBubble.html

Observations of Helium Bubbles in Thin
                Palladium Metal Foil using Scanning Electron
                                         Microscopy
                              Evidence of Sonofusion Micro Nuclear
                                   Reactions in Thin Metal Foils

                                           Russ George
                                   E-Quest Technology, Palo Alto, CA
                                             May 1997
The SEM image included in this brief paper shows the presence of
spherical voids, bubbles, in a thin palladium foil. The foil was loaded
with deuterium via the use of intense cavitation while  immersed in D2O.
During the experiment a large signature of anomalous heat (>100 watts)
in excess of the acoustic energy input was observed. The original
experiment was performed in 1996 at SRI International (Menlo Park, CA)
under contract to the Electric Power Research   Institute (Palo Alto,
CA) as part of a program to demonstrate anomalous nuclear heating via
the techniques employed (see EPRI report). In May 1997 using a scanning
electron microscope we  were able to inspect a fracture cross section of
the foils which revealed the internal structure.

             The SEM effort revealed spherical voids or bubbles which
appear to decorate grain  boundaries. Strings of bubbles line up in an
orderly fashion roughly following grain boundaries.  The bubble/voids of
interest measured here between 100nm and 1000nm are consistent with
similar helium bubbles seen in various metals and widely reported in the
scientific literature.
             Larger voids may have an alternative origin such as a micro
nuclear explosions as referenced in  the brief paper presented elsewhere
on this web site.

             Phenomena which create helium bubbles in metals are well
known and have an extensive literature. They are created when metals are
subjected to intense radiation, implanted with  helium, or in the case
palladium having been used to store tritium for a long period during
which  3He is produced by tritium decay. Helium in metal has very low
mobility and cannot escape. It  does however tend to accumulate in the
spherical voids as seen in the following image.

                              Helium Bubbles In A Fracture Cross Section

                                   of 100 Micron Thick Palladium Foil

          References suggest the pressure of helium in such voids ranges
between 0.5Gpa and 2Gpa (at  which pressure the helium in the bubbles
may approach that in a metallic state). The very high  pressure in the
bubbles is presumed based on calculations of the energy required to
distort the metal lattice. Looking at the bubble distribution in the
lattice as apparent from the image above, we can estimate that there are
in the neighborhood of 109 bubbles in the target foil. Each bubble  is
estimated to contain approximately ~1010 atoms of helium. This would
suggest the total foil  contains ~1019 atoms of helium entrained in
voids (see detail below). One might logically  imagine that much more
helium is distributed in the lattice not visible to our technique
allowing for a higher total helium concentration. Perhaps the total
helium produced by the reactions in the lattice is 1020 - 1021 atoms in
the 3 gram target foil. This number compares quite closely to the work
of Arata who reports observing >1021 atoms of helium in 3-5 gm samples
of palladium  from experiments which loaded palladium to a high D:Pd
ratio and produced anomalous heat.
             Arata assumes a nuclear process is responsible for the
creation of helium isotopes in the lattice.
             Of great interest in the work of Arata is the observation
of a 3He to 4He ratio of 1:4 rather than  the normal abundance of
1:800,000 (Journal of the High Temperature Society of Japan Jan  1997).

             The observation of helium bubbles in the metal helps link
several other interesting observations  from this work. Helium loading
and helium bubbles in the lattice help to account for the physical
damage the metal suffers during the experiments. As the literature
reports helium loaded metals  are substantially weakened and suffer
dramatic damage. In addition in earlier work in association with the
Naval Research Laboratory similar Pd foils from our experiments were
observed via x-ray diffraction and were shown to be characteristically
that of a stable highly  loaded lattice. In work using helium mass
spectroscopy at the US Bureau of Mines Helium lab, SRI's MS lab, and
analytical services of Rocketdyne /Rockwell we have measured on many
occasions 1017 -1018 atoms of helium in the reactor gases from our
experiments. The levels of   helium observed were 50ppm -500ppm
considerably beyond the atmospheric concentration of  ~5ppm, isotopic
studies proved the helium was not of any known origin.

             A review of noble gases in metals is available in a NATO
Advanced Research Workshop  paper edited by Donnelly and Evans - Nato
ASI Series B 1991. Another paper providing an  overview is Noble Gas
Inclusions in Materials by Fleischer and Norton in Heterogenous
Chemistry Reviews vol. 3 1996.















--------------E7AA6088A9A85A58B0E47401
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------E7AA6088A9A85A58B0E47401--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 18 19:35:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16181;
	Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:15:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:15:52 -0800
Message-ID: <367B0C7E.CF6F5205 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:16:31 -0700
From: Richard Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: George: STI sonofusion claims  Oct., 1998
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------DE34945526DFC66701009AC3"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dkx_O2.0.ky3.NnmUs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25405
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.
--------------DE34945526DFC66701009AC3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/saturnahome.html

NEWS October/December 1998

                   Saturna Technologies Inc. (STI), a newly incorporated
company, is
                   based in Palo Alto California and Vancouver British
Columbia. The company
                   is focused on the development of new energy
technologies utilizing several
                   innovative and proprietary solid state deuterium
fusion processes as the core
                   energy producing reaction. The company is led by CEO
David Patterson and
                   President Dr. Robert Falls. Russ George directs
scientific and engineering
                   efforts.

Wired Magazine's November 1998 issue arrived on magazine racks in late
                   October sporting a major feature story by author
Charles Platt (well known
                   science and technology writer) titled "WHAT IF COLD
FUSION WERE
                   REAL." In the lengthy 18 page story the author
describes various work in this
                   field starting with the original discoveries of Pons
and Fleischmann in 1989
                   and culminating with the work by STI Chief Scientist
Russ George at SRI
                   International confirming that indeed cold fusion is
real.

                   The question this public affirmation of cold fusion
in Wired Magazine will raise
                   is will this spectacular finding of helium evidence
for cold fusion at SRI be
                   confirmed in other labs.

                                   ***************************

                   To reassure the scientific and industrial community
that this new energy
                   technology is indeed in hand and ready for
development Saturna
                   Technologies Inc. is now carrying out a series of
demonstrations of
                   it's breakthrough technologies. Following on the
success and ongoing work at
                   SRI International STI is engaged in additional
demonstrations being carried
                   out at Battelle Pacific Northwest Division Labs which
are housed within the
                   Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
Battelle operates this lab for
                   the U.S. Department of Energy in Richland Washington.
These
                   demonstrations are designed to confirm, under
rigorous scientific supervision,
                   the previous work performed by STI Chief Scientist
Russ George at SRI
                   International with the cooperation of the Electric
Power Research Institute in
                   the summer of 1998.  In the work at Battelle/PNNL
scientists will monitor
                   STI reactors for the characteristic nuclear reaction
products which in this case
                   are the isotopes of helium - 3He and 4He.

                   The Battelle/ PNNL laboratory doing this work is the
most respected
                   laboratory in the world specializing in quantitative
measurement of nuclear
                   reactions which produce characteristic helium
isotopes as the reaction
                   products. The PNNL scientists and lab have been
engaged in this line of
                   exacting nuclear science for over 25 years for the
international nuclear industry
                   and research community.

                   Following these confirming demonstrations STI will be
embarking on
                   engineering development of commercial applications
utilizing proprietary
                   technologies for this new form of nuclear energy. The
STI technology
                   represents a major breakthrough in nuclear power as
neither radiation is
                   released from the reaction nor are radioactive wastes
produced. STI intends
                   to develop the reactions to deliver nuclear energy in
the form of high grade
                   industrial heat suited for a large variety of
applications ranging from small
                   space heaters to multi megawatt power plants.

                   Interested parties may obtain details on STI by
contacting the company at:

                   Saturna Technologies Inc.
                   3309 Alma St.
                   Palo Alto, CA 94306

                   Toll Free telephone: 1-888-744-7744

                   or via e-mail to saturna bed-rock.com

                   Chief Scientist Russ George may be contacted at
rgeorge hooked.net.

                   American Physical Society Paper
                   Russ George presented this paper on March 19th, 1998
the first
                   paper the American Physical Society has accepted that
presents
                   data showing proof of "sonofusion." See the APS Web
Site
                   (http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S4170002.html)
                   Catalytic Fusion

                   Since the announcement in the spring of 1989 that
cold fusion occurs in the
                   presence of palladium and deuterium many people have
assumed something
                   akin to catalysis must be producing the reactions.
After all palladium has long
                   been known as one of the most useful hydrogenation
catalysts and any
                   reaction where hydrogen and palladium are combined
might have something to
                   do with the catalytic properties of palladium.

                   Work by many scientists including those now working
with STI dating back to
                   1989 have reported evidence which hints of catalytic
like activity when
                   deuterium is applied under different catalytic like
conditions with palladium and
                   other platinum group metals. Particular attention to
this issue has been
                   provided Dr. Howard Menlove of Los  Alamos National
Labs, Dr. Srinivasn
                   of the Bhaba Institute in India, Dr. Donald Cram
(Nobel Laureate in
                   Chemistry) at UCLA, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka, and
more recently by Dr.
                   Les Case of New Hampshire (who attributes his getting
on the trail of catalytic
                   fusion to his hearing of the work of Dr. E. Yamaguchi
of NTT labs in Japan.)

                   Currently Russ George STI Chief Scientist is
collaborating with several of
                   these scientists on studies of the nano-chemical
nature of the catalyst materials
                   as well as on demonstration of the catalytic fusion
technology in leading U.S.
                   National Laboratories. Experiments are underway under
with an on-line mass
                   spectrometers capable of real time on-line
quantitative measure of the 4He
                   and 3He, the principal nuclear signature products of
these reactions.
                   Additional attention is being focused on the
engineering needed to scale the
                   process to commercial size.

                   Recent data has shown irrefutable evidence of
production of 4He in a catalytic
                   fusion experiment conducted using an on-line Extrel
quadrapole Mass
                   Spectrometer owned by the Electric Power Research
Institute and located in
                   a laboratory at SRI International in Menlo Park,
California. The experiment
                   revealed a steadily increasing concentration of 4He
over a period of 4 weeks.
                   At the start of the experiment the concentration of
4He in deuterium gas was
                   measured in the sealed experiment at under 1 ppm, by
the end of the
                   experiment the concentration had risen to over 10ppm.

                   This method of catalytic fusion is to introduce
deuterium to a suitable
                   proprietary hydrogenation catalyst under specific
catalysis conditions. The
                   nano particles of palladium (and other platinum group
catalyst metals) in
                   association with certain catalyst support material
produce anomalous heating
                   and helium when in the presence of deuterium. One of
the obvious commercial
                   applications for this experimental protocol is to
scale it to an appropriate sized
                   vessel that can produce sufficient heat to provide
for extraction and
                   distribution of that heat. One embodiment would be to
use heat transfer tubes
                   which would remove commercial grade heat from the
system in the form of
                   hot water or steam. An even simpler embodiment is as
a radiative heat source.
                   The possible uses of 250-500 degree Celsius heat are
myriad.

                   Bio for Russ George,   Chief Scientist Saturna
Technologies Inc.

                   In addition to the work in my own lab over the past
nine years I have spent
                   time as a visiting scientist at Los Alamos National
Labs, Lawrence Berkeley
                   Labs, SRI International, and under contract with the
Electric Power Research
                   Institute working on various research experiments to
understand this
                   phenomenon. I have had or have active research
collaborations with scientists
                   at Los Alamos, Rockwell International, US Bureau of
Mines, Naval Research
                   Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Labs/ Battelle, Charles
Evans and Associates,
                   and a number of other labs around the world. I've
also been invited to Japan
                   to act as an advisor to the Japanese government New
Hydrogen Energy
                   committee of MITI. I have been invited and have
prepared briefings on this
                   work for members of the U.S. cabinet and top brass in
the Navy and Marine
                   Corp. I have lectured on this topic in national labs,
corporate research
                   facilities, and to energy organizations and
consortiums in the USA and abroad.
                   I do from time to time provide private briefings and
seminars on this topic and
                   will make an effort to continue to do so.

                   In the spring of 1998 I will be giving seminars on
this work in major research
                   institutes in Europe and North America. If your
organization has an interest in
                   hearing one of my presentations I encourage you to
contact me at
                   rgeorge hooked.net.

                   For some related reading and research:

                   L. A. Crum, Sonoluminescence Physics Today, Sept.
1994, also Science
                   Dec. 16,1995

                   Lord Rayleigh, Phil. Mag. 34, 94 (1917)

                   R.E. Apfel, Acoustic Cavitation, Methods of
Experimental Physics Vol 19,
                   Ultrasonics, Ed. by P. Edmonds, Academic Press, 356
(1984)

                   H.G. Flynn, J. Accoust. Soc. Am., 72, 1926 (1982)

                   T.B. Benjamin and A. T. Ellis, The Collapse of
Cavitation Bubbles and the
                   Pressures thereby Produced Against Solid Boundaries,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
                   London Sect. A. 260, 221 (1966)

                   M.S. Plesset and R. B. Chapman, Collapse of an
Initially Spherical Vapor
                   Cavity in the Neighborhood of a Solid Boundary, J.
Fluid Mech. 47, 283
                   (1971)

                   W. Lauterborn and H. Bolle, Experimental
Investigations of Cavitation-bubble
                   Collapse in the Neighborhood of a Solid Boundary, J.
Fluid Mech. 72, 391
                   (1975)

                   S.P. Barber and S. J. Putterman, Light Scattering
Measurements of the
                   Repetitive Supersonic Implosion of a Sonoluminescing
Bubble, Phys. Rev.
                   Let. 69, 26 3839 (1992)

                   D.F. Gaitan, L. A. Crum, C. C. Church and R. A. Roy,
Sonoluminescence
                   and Bubble Dynamics for a Single, Stable, Cavitation
Bubble J. Accoust. Soc.
                   Am. 91, 6 (1992)

                   A. Prosperetti, The Equation of Bubble Dynamics in a
Compressible Liquid ,
                   Phys. Fluids, vol 30, No 11 (1987)

                   H. Fischer, F. J. Hart and A. Henglein, J. Phys Chem
90 222 (Jan. 1986)

                   H. Farrar and B. Oliver, A Mass Spectrometer to
Determine very low Levels
                   of Helium in small Solid and Liquid Samples, J. Va.
Sci. Technology, A4,
                   1740 (1968)

                   P.W. Holland and D.E. Emerson, A Determination of the
Helium Content of
                   the Near-Surface Atmospheric Air Within the
Continental United States, J.
                   Geophysi. Res. 92, No. B12, 12557

                   G. H. Miley, Comments about Nuclear Reaction Products
, Proc. ICCF-4
                   Conf. On Cold Fusion, Vol. 2, EPRI TR-104188-V2 (July
1994)

                   SRI, EPRI, Lockheed, Development of Advanced Concepts
for Nuclear
                   Processes in Deuterated Metals , EPRI TR-104195 Final
Report, (1994)

                   L. Crum and R. Roy, Sonoluminescence , Science, Vol
266, Oct. 1994

                   J. Schwinger, Cold Fusion Theory - A Brief History of
Mine , Proc. ICCF-4
                   Conf. On Cold Fusion, Vol. 4, EPRI TR-104188-V4 (July
1994)

                   Send comments to the author       rgeorge hooked.net

                   Snail mail to:

                   Russ George,
                   Saturna Technology Inc.,
                   3309 Alma Street
                   Palo Alto, CA 94306
This page is at http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/saturnahome.html

Last modified Oct. 1998

--------------DE34945526DFC66701009AC3
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="rmforall.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard Murray
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="rmforall.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Murray;Richard  T. 
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Room For All
version:2.1
email;internet:rmforall earthlink.net
note:www.home.earthlink.net/~rmforall   1943 Otowi Drive, Santa  Fe, NM 87505, 505-986-9103
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Richard  T.  Murray
end:vcard

--------------DE34945526DFC66701009AC3--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 19 16:13:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00786;
	Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:12:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:12:34 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be2bad$4386d900$ec441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stimulated Deuteron K-Capture and Aneutronic CF Reactions
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:11:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q_S3a1.0.7C.o34Vs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25408
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Russ George www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/saturnahome.html argues convincingly
that He4 and Tritium are produced in CF reactions sans neutrons.

If the forced interaction between an Electron and Deuteron
occurs forming a Neutrino-AntiNeutrino pair and thus a Dineutron, and as Ron
Brodzinski (PNNL) points out from his PhD thesis (ca.1965) the Dineutron is
"Unbound" by 50 ev and comes apart in about "100 Femtoseconds"....., or
immediately reacts with a Deuteron forming He4 and emitting the neutrino
with most of the 22+ Mev accounted for. Also in the "close quarters" of the
Pd Lattice, momentum could be shared with neighboring Deuterons or the Pd
lattice etc.

If the Dineutron "splits" into two "Light Neutrons" plus the Neutrino these
can react with deuterons to form the Tritium in the quantities that Russ
George claims.

Regards,   Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 20 10:48:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA06919;
	Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:45:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:45:41 -0800
Message-ID: <002f01be2c48$c11e2bc0$e1441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: High Pressure Electrolysis Capsules
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 11:42:27 -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: <"iPnvE1.0.1i1.KNKVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25409
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Capsules of Boric Acid (D3BO3)mixed with Lithium Hydroxide (LiOD)and pressed
into a
small bore (Heavy-Wall)ceramic or quartz tube (2 mm?)with a current passed
through the nickel(or Stainless) rod electrodes, might be of
interest.

At about 300 C:

4 D3BO3 + 2 LiOD ---> Li2B4O7 + 7 D2O or Tetraboric acid
D2B4O7/Li2B4O7(lithium borate).

The D2O pressure could get up to Kilo-Psi depending on the temperature, but,
with a small
bore heavy-wall tube and a good seal this shouldn't be much of a problem,
and
could help attain o-u effects.

Then again a "D2O Paste" of Borax, Na2B4O7-D2O might be of interest.

WITH SAFETY DISCLAIMER!

Regards,  Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 20 13:59:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29269;
	Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:58:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:58:38 -0800
Message-ID: <004a01be2c63$b1b3fd20$e1441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Tritium Program Big-Bucks Decision (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/3news12-20.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:53:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D9_01BE2C28.830046E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y-U5l1.0.497.DCNVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25410
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_00D9_01BE2C28.830046E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            last updated:
            Sunday, 20-Dec-98 06:54:01


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            SPECIAL PROJECTS
            Millennium

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Beaten at the Border

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Trinity: 50 Years Later


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            NATIONAL NEWS
            New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            The Nando Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            RealAudio: ABC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            USA Today

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            NewsLink


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            MAGAZINES
            TIME Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            USNews Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Wired Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
           =20
            Return to the NEWS page  =20
           =20
           =20
               =20


                Sunday, December 20, 1998
               =20
                Tritium Program Big-Bucks Decision
                N.M. One of 6 States Seeking Part of Project
               =20

                By Ian Hoffman
                Journal Staff Writer
                 One reason U.S. nuclear weapons are the most efficient =
killing devices on Earth is a radioactive gas called tritium.=20
                 It is the most expensive stuff on the planet, priced at =
roughly $50,000 a gram.=20
                 It's also perishable. Half of the gas decays every 12.4 =
years, so nuclear weapons must be refilled to keep their hydrogen-bomb =
punch.=20
                 In the next week, Bill Richardson will make one of his =
heftiest decisions as secretary of Energy: How will the nation make =
enough tritium for its nuclear arsenal?=20
                 His choices boil down to two kinds of tritium =
factories: a civilian nuclear reactor in Alabama or Tennessee, or a =
powerful proton accelerator to be built at an Energy Department site in =
Aiken, S.C.=20
                 Proponents are hyping the benefits of each choice.=20
                 The reactor would generate electricity to defray the =
cost of tritium production. The accelerator, being designed at Los =
Alamos National Laboratory, could make radioactive elements worth up to =
$150 million a year for treating cancer and other ailments. Its beam =
also could "burn" highly radioactive nuclear waste into shorter-lived =
wastes easier to dispose of.=20
                 Whatever Richardson chooses, tritium production means =
billions of dollars in jobs and procurement, a formula for pork-barrel =
wrangling.=20
                 Congress has risen to the occasion. Six states -- New =
Mexico among them -- are scrapping for a piece of the U.S. tritium =
project. Some legislators promise a fight if they don't get it.=20
                 Congress and President Clinton have already rejected =
the least expensive alternatives to making tritium.=20
               =20

                Congress wants decision
                 The nation might have bought the gas from Canada or =
Russia, an idea dismissed as foolhardy reliance on a foreign country for =
U.S. military needs. Or the nation could simply keep recycling tritium =
from its many dismantled weapons, as nuclear disarmament activists would =
prefer.=20
                 Today's U.S. arsenal of about 8,500 fielded weapons =
needs no fresh tritium until late 2009. Add a decade if arms-control =
treaties or Russia's rapidly deteriorating nuclear forces allow the =
United States to cut its arsenal in half. Still deeper cuts could delay =
the need for new tritium as late as 2075.=20
                 "We don't need it," said physicist Frank von Hippel, a =
professor of international affairs at Princeton University.=20
                 "The current debate over tritium requirements is =
completely artificial, driven by hungry nuclear contractors and =
politicians eager for new, multi-billion facilities and by hawks =
obstinately ignoring the decay rate of Russia's nuclear arsenal," wrote =
von Hippel and colleague Charles Ferguson of the Federation of American =
Scientists in a recent Defense News editorial.=20
                 But Congress has demanded Richardson choose -- =
production by reactor or accelerator -- by Dec. 31. Richardson has said =
he will decide by Christmas.=20
                 There's lots to consider: cost, flexibility, =
environmental impact, potential delays due to legal or regulatory =
battles and impacts on U.S. arms-control policy.=20
                 Politics, Richardson has pledged, will not play a role =
in his decision.=20
                 "He is emphatic he's going to make this decision based =
on national-security interests," said Joan Rohlfing, the senior =
national-security adviser to Richardson.=20
               =20

                Reactor vs. accelerator
                 For years, accelerator proponents suspected the Energy =
Department of favoring the reactor option. The department's cost =
comparisons, for example, never included the expense of waste disposal =
for the reactor, nor credited the accelerator for sales of medical =
radioisotopes.=20
                 Richardson, however, has listened evenhandedly to =
pitchmen for both options and hasn't yet revealed his leanings.=20
                 "I think Bill Richardson's trying to play this very =
straight," said LANL nuclear physicist Paul Lisowski, the national =
leader for the accelerator project.=20
                 Reactors are the workaday standard, the way the United =
States made weapons tritium from the 1950s until the 1988 shutdown of a =
production reactor at Savannah River for safety reasons.=20
                 The Tennessee Valley Authority sees tritium production =
as a breath of fresh life and jobs for a nuclear-power industry =
beleaguered by safety, waste and environmental problems and rampant cost =
escalation.=20
                 TVA's newest reactor, Watts Bar I, has a good safety =
record but cost almost 14 times TVA's original estimate. It took 12 =
years to start producing electricity after TVA said the reactor was =
finished.=20
                 TVA's lead proposal uses $2 billion in DOE money to =
complete its unfinished Bellefonte reactor near Hollywood, Ala., and =
make tritium there. Total cost for 40 years of tritium production at =
Bellefonte is estimated at $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion.=20
                 Richardson asked TVA to renew an earlier proposal =
simply to sell "irradiation services" to make tritium in a finished =
reactor, such as TVA's Watts Bar I in Spring City, Tenn.=20
                 TVA says this will cost $2.9 billion.=20
                 Critics say making weapons tritium in a TVA reactor =
would reverse U.S. nuclear policy since the 1940s of keeping military =
and civilian uses of the atom apart.=20
                 Blurring that distinction, they say, could make it hard =
for the United States to dissuade North Korea, Iraq and other would-be =
members of the nuclear club from making weapons materials in government =
power reactors.=20
                 "This can be used by critics to point out that U.S. =
rhetoric does not match U.S. policy," said Tariq Rauf, a nuclear =
proliferation expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. =
"It's a matter of setting a good example for other countries."=20
               =20

                The 'greener' option
                 Los Alamos scientists promote the use of a high-energy =
proton beam to make tritium as the safer, "greener" option, involving =
less waste and no risk of runaway nuclear reactions.=20
                 It is also more expensive.=20
                 Building the accelerator by 2008 would cost $2.5 =
billion to $3.4 billion, depending on the amount of tritium needed. =
Total cost for construction and 40 years of operation is about $6 =
billion. At Los Alamos, over 450 lab and contract employees are working =
on the project.=20
                 The Aiken, S.C., accelerator would be 100 times more =
powerful than any other linear particle accelerator. It would use =
electricity to massage bunches of protons into a tight beam, then hurls =
the particles faster and faster to nearly light speed. This requires =
machines capable of switching the electrical current 350 million times a =
second.=20
                 The beam itself, glowing a dull lavender, is actually a =
stream of particle "droplets," each containing a billion or so protons.=20
                 Almost a mile away, the proton beam would widen and =
strike bars of tungsten and lead, knocking off neutrons. The neutrons =
would be "captured" by helium gas in pipes nearby. An extraction =
facility would continuously strip away the tritium and recirculate clean =
helium back to the end of the beam.=20
               =20

           =20
           =20
           =20
                TOP
           =20
            Copyright =A9 1997, 1998 Albuquerque Journal

            =20
           =20
           =20
            =20


------=_NextPart_000_00D9_01BE2C28.830046E0
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>ABQjournal News: Tritium Program =
Big-Bucks Decision</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.abqjournal.com/news/3news12-20.htm>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D../base/back1.gif bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><A name=3Dtop>
<TABLE border=3D0 width=3D590>
    <TBODY>
    <TR align=3Dleft>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle vAlign=3Dtop width=3D95><A =
href=3D"../default.htm"><IMG=20
            align=3Dcenter border=3D0 src=3D"../base/abqj.gif" =
width=3D95></A><BR>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><FONT size=3D-1>last updated:<BR>Sunday, 20-Dec-98 =
06:54:01
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><A href=3D"../border/default.htm"><STRONG>SPECIAL=20
            PROJECTS</STRONG></A><BR><A=20
            href=3D"../2000/2000.htm">Millennium</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"../border/border.htm">Beaten at the =
Border</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"../trinity/trinity.htm">Trinity: 50 Years =
Later</A>
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><STRONG>NATIONAL NEWS</STRONG><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com" target=3DNEW>New York =
Times</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www2.nando.net/nt/nando.cgi" =
target=3DNEW>The Nando=20
            Times</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.realaudio.com/contentp/abc.html"=20
            target=3DNEW>RealAudio: ABC News</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.cnn.com/US/index.html" =
target=3DNEW>CNN</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm" =
target=3DNEW>USA=20
            Today</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.newslink.org/" =
target=3DNEW>NewsLink</A>
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><STRONG>MAGAZINES</STRONG><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://pathfinder.com/time/" target=3DNEW>TIME =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.usnews.com/" target=3DNEW>USNews =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.wired.com/" target=3DNEW>Wired =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><A href=3D"./default.htm"><IMG border=3D0=20
            src=3D"../base/back.gif"><BR>Return to the NEWS page</A>
            <CENTER></CENTER></FONT></TD>
        <TD width=3D45></TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D450>
            <CENTER><!META  # was 8.81423950195312 ++ 15 - max number of =
ads><A=20
            =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/redirect/metropolitan.htm"=20
            target=3D_NEW><IMG align=3Dtop border=3D0=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/metrobanner.gif"></A>=20
            <P><IMG align=3Dtop border=3D0 height=3D45 =
src=3D"../base/news.gif" vspace=3D4=20
            width=3D118><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.map"><IMG =
align=3Dcenter=20
            border=3D0 height=3D50 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.gif" =
useMap=3D#wordmenu3=20
            width=3D450 ?></A><BR><MAP name=3Dwordmenu3><AREA=20
                coords=3D385,25,434,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/index"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D328,26,380,40=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/search?NS-collection=3Djnl_docs"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D308,26,325,39=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.tvquest.com/cgi-bin/gate2?t~tvquest/newspaper.html~nma=
ljo"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D240,26,305,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.adone.com/abqjournal" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D188,26,235,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/use/tourist.htm"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D102,26,184,38=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/venue" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D20,25,98,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D374,5,412,23=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/homes" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D330,5,370,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/health"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D282,6,326,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D234,7,278,23 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D179,5,230,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/weather" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D134,7,175,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/sports"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D79,5,130,25=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/biz" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D39,7,75,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/news"=20
                shape=3DRECT></MAP>
            <P></CENTER>
            <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=3D-1><B>Sunday, December 20,=20
                1998</B><BR></FONT>
                <P><FONT size=3D+2><B>Tritium Program Big-Bucks=20
                Decision</B></FONT><BR><FONT size=3D+1><I><B>N.M. One of =
6 States=20
                Seeking Part of Project</B></I></FONT><BR>
                <P><B>By Ian Hoffman</B><BR><I>Journal Staff =
Writer</I><BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> One =
reason U.S.=20
                nuclear weapons are the most efficient killing devices =
on Earth=20
                is a radioactive gas called tritium. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> It is the most expensive =
stuff on the=20
                planet, priced at roughly $50,000 a gram. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> It's also =
perishable. Half of=20
                the gas decays every 12.4 years, so nuclear weapons must =
be=20
                refilled to keep their hydrogen-bomb punch. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> In the next =
week, Bill=20
                Richardson will make one of his heftiest decisions as =
secretary=20
                of Energy: How will the nation make enough tritium for =
its=20
                nuclear arsenal? <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> His choices boil down to two kinds of =
tritium=20
                factories: a civilian nuclear reactor in Alabama or =
Tennessee,=20
                or a powerful proton accelerator to be built at an =
Energy=20
                Department site in Aiken, S.C. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Proponents are hyping the =
benefits of=20
                each choice. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> The reactor would generate electricity to =
defray the=20
                cost of tritium production. The accelerator, being =
designed at=20
                Los Alamos National Laboratory, could make radioactive =
elements=20
                worth up to $150 million a year for treating cancer and =
other=20
                ailments. Its beam also could &quot;burn&quot; highly=20
                radioactive nuclear waste into shorter-lived wastes =
easier to=20
                dispose of. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Whatever Richardson chooses, tritium production means =
billions=20
                of dollars in jobs and procurement, a formula for =
pork-barrel=20
                wrangling. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Congress has risen to the occasion. Six states -- New =
Mexico=20
                among them -- are scrapping for a piece of the U.S. =
tritium=20
                project. Some legislators promise a fight if they don't =
get it.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Congress=20
                and President Clinton have already rejected the least =
expensive=20
                alternatives to making tritium. <BR>
                <P><FONT size=3D+1><B>Congress wants =
decision</B></FONT><BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> The =
nation might=20
                have bought the gas from Canada or Russia, an idea =
dismissed as=20
                foolhardy reliance on a foreign country for U.S. =
military needs.=20
                Or the nation could simply keep recycling tritium from =
its many=20
                dismantled weapons, as nuclear disarmament activists =
would=20
                prefer. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10>=20
                Today's U.S. arsenal of about 8,500 fielded weapons =
needs no=20
                fresh tritium until late 2009. Add a decade if =
arms-control=20
                treaties or Russia's rapidly deteriorating nuclear =
forces allow=20
                the United States to cut its arsenal in half. Still =
deeper cuts=20
                could delay the need for new tritium as late as 2075. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
&quot;We don't need=20
                it,&quot; said physicist Frank von Hippel, a professor =
of=20
                international affairs at Princeton University. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> &quot;The =
current debate over=20
                tritium requirements is completely artificial, driven by =
hungry=20
                nuclear contractors and politicians eager for new, =
multi-billion=20
                facilities and by hawks obstinately ignoring the decay =
rate of=20
                Russia's nuclear arsenal,&quot; wrote von Hippel and =
colleague=20
                Charles Ferguson of the Federation of American =
Scientists in a=20
                recent Defense News editorial. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> But Congress has demanded =
Richardson=20
                choose -- production by reactor or accelerator -- by =
Dec. 31.=20
                Richardson has said he will decide by Christmas. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
There's lots to=20
                consider: cost, flexibility, environmental impact, =
potential=20
                delays due to legal or regulatory battles and impacts on =
U.S.=20
                arms-control policy. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> Politics, Richardson has pledged, will not =
play a role=20
                in his decision. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> &quot;He is emphatic he's going to make this =
decision=20
                based on national-security interests,&quot; said Joan =
Rohlfing,=20
                the senior national-security adviser to Richardson. <BR>
                <P><FONT size=3D+1><B>Reactor vs. =
accelerator</B></FONT><BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> For =
years,=20
                accelerator proponents suspected the Energy Department =
of=20
                favoring the reactor option. The department's cost =
comparisons,=20
                for example, never included the expense of waste =
disposal for=20
                the reactor, nor credited the accelerator for sales of =
medical=20
                radioisotopes. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> Richardson, however, has listened =
evenhandedly to=20
                pitchmen for both options and hasn't yet revealed his =
leanings.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> &quot;I=20
                think Bill Richardson's trying to play this very =
straight,&quot;=20
                said LANL nuclear physicist Paul Lisowski, the national =
leader=20
                for the accelerator project. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Reactors are the workaday =
standard,=20
                the way the United States made weapons tritium from the =
1950s=20
                until the 1988 shutdown of a production reactor at =
Savannah=20
                River for safety reasons. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =

                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> The Tennessee Valley =
Authority sees=20
                tritium production as a breath of fresh life and jobs =
for a=20
                nuclear-power industry beleaguered by safety, waste and=20
                environmental problems and rampant cost escalation. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
TVA's newest=20
                reactor, Watts Bar I, has a good safety record but cost =
almost=20
                14 times TVA's original estimate. It took 12 years to =
start=20
                producing electricity after TVA said the reactor was =
finished.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> TVA's lead=20
                proposal uses $2 billion in DOE money to complete its =
unfinished=20
                Bellefonte reactor near Hollywood, Ala., and make =
tritium there.=20
                Total cost for 40 years of tritium production at =
Bellefonte is=20
                estimated at $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Richardson =
asked TVA to renew=20
                an earlier proposal simply to sell &quot;irradiation=20
                services&quot; to make tritium in a finished reactor, =
such as=20
                TVA's Watts Bar I in Spring City, Tenn. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> TVA says this =
will cost $2.9=20
                billion. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Critics say making weapons tritium in a TVA reactor =
would=20
                reverse U.S. nuclear policy since the 1940s of keeping =
military=20
                and civilian uses of the atom apart. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Blurring that distinction, =
they say,=20
                could make it hard for the United States to dissuade =
North=20
                Korea, Iraq and other would-be members of the nuclear =
club from=20
                making weapons materials in government power reactors. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
&quot;This can be=20
                used by critics to point out that U.S. rhetoric does not =
match=20
                U.S. policy,&quot; said Tariq Rauf, a nuclear =
proliferation=20
                expert at the Monterey Institute of International =
Studies.=20
                &quot;It's a matter of setting a good example for other=20
                countries.&quot; <BR>
                <P><FONT size=3D+1><B>The 'greener' =
option</B></FONT><BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Los =
Alamos=20
                scientists promote the use of a high-energy proton beam =
to make=20
                tritium as the safer, &quot;greener&quot; option, =
involving less=20
                waste and no risk of runaway nuclear reactions. <BR><IMG =

                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> It =
is also more=20
                expensive. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Building the accelerator by 2008 would cost $2.5 billion =
to $3.4=20
                billion, depending on the amount of tritium needed. =
Total cost=20
                for construction and 40 years of operation is about $6 =
billion.=20
                At Los Alamos, over 450 lab and contract employees are =
working=20
                on the project. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> The Aiken, S.C., accelerator would be 100 =
times more=20
                powerful than any other linear particle accelerator. It =
would=20
                use electricity to massage bunches of protons into a =
tight beam,=20
                then hurls the particles faster and faster to nearly =
light=20
                speed. This requires machines capable of switching the=20
                electrical current 350 million times a second. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> The beam =
itself, glowing a=20
                dull lavender, is actually a stream of particle=20
                &quot;droplets,&quot; each containing a billion or so =
protons.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Almost a=20
                mile away, the proton beam would widen and strike bars =
of=20
                tungsten and lead, knocking off neutrons. The neutrons =
would be=20
                &quot;captured&quot; by helium gas in pipes nearby. An=20
                extraction facility would continuously strip away the =
tritium=20
                and recirculate clean helium back to the end of the =
beam.=20
                <BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
            <CENTER><A =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.map"><IMG=20
            align=3Dcenter border=3D0 height=3D50 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.gif" =
useMap=3D#wordmenu3=20
            width=3D450 ?></A><BR><MAP name=3Dwordmenu3><AREA=20
                coords=3D385,25,434,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/index"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D328,26,380,40=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/search?NS-collection=3Djnl_docs"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D308,26,325,39=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.tvquest.com/cgi-bin/gate2?t~tvquest/newspaper.html~nma=
ljo"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D240,26,305,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.adone.com/abqjournal" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D188,26,235,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/use/tourist.htm"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D102,26,184,38=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/venue" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D20,25,98,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D374,5,412,23=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/homes" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D330,5,370,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/health"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D282,6,326,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D234,7,278,23 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D179,5,230,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/weather" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D134,7,175,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/sports"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D79,5,130,25=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/biz" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D39,7,75,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/news"=20
                shape=3DRECT></MAP><FONT size=3D-1><A =
href=3D"#TOP">TOP</A><BR><!-- half banner house ads --><BR>Copyright=20
            &copy; 1997, 1998 Albuquerque Journal
            <P>
            <P><A =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/redirect/tvquest.htm"><IMG=20
            border=3D0 height=3D65=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/sm-tvbanner.gif"=20
            width=3D200></A><IMG height=3D10 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D1> <A=20
            href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D65=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/uswestbanner.gif"=20
            width=3D200></A><BR><!--call to real media for excess =
inventory ads --><BR>
            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1=20
            =
src=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_jx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir">
<!-- --> <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/dir"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir"></a>
</SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript> <!--
_version=3D10; //--> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1> <!--
_version=3D11; // --> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript>
<!--=20
if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf('MSIE 3') !=3D -1){
document.write('<IFRAME WIDTH=3D468 HEIGHT=3D60 MARGINWIDTH=3D0 =
MARGINHEIGHT=3D0 HSPACE=3D0 VSPACE=3D0 FRAMEBORDER=3D0 SCROLLING=3Dno =
BORDERCOLOR=3D"#000000" BORDER=3D0 =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_sx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir"></iframe>');=20
} else if (_version < 11) {
document.write ('<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/dir?x"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir?x"></a>');
}
// -->
</SCRIPT>
            </CENTER></FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- This =
document was created using BeyondPress(TM) 2.0 -437694. --><!-- This =
document created using BeyondPress(TM) 4.0 For Macintosh =
--></A></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00D9_01BE2C28.830046E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 20 13:59:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29306;
	Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:58:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:58:42 -0800
Message-ID: <004b01be2c63$b5db86c0$e1441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Tritium Program Big-Bucks Decision (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/3news12-20.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:56:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E2_01BE2C28.DF18A1C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"WYIJ92.0.e97.FCNVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25411
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_00E2_01BE2C28.DF18A1C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Get out your CF Tritium Generators, Folks.
At $50,000/gram, what the heck?   :-)

Regards,  Frederick

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/3news12-20.htm

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01BE2C28.DF18A1C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" Tritium Program Big-Bucks Decision.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" Tritium Program Big-Bucks Decision.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.abqjournal.com/news/3news12-20.htm
Modified=C0EBF734632CBE0124

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01BE2C28.DF18A1C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 20 15:34:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16715;
	Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:33:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:33:50 -0800
Message-ID: <006801be2c71$02ca6de0$e1441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  How APT Works (http://www.apt.lanl.gov/system.html)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:31:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EB_01BE2C36.3C102620"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pec851.0.054.TbOVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25412
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_00EB_01BE2C36.3C102620
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tritium Production. Looks like they use oil drops to get "a billion protons"
in a droplet.
Millikan would be pleased. Pennzoil?  :-)

http://www.apt.lanl.gov/system.html

------=_NextPart_000_00EB_01BE2C36.3C102620
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" How APT Works.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" How APT Works.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.apt.lanl.gov/system.html
Modified=A0570E70702CBE01D0

------=_NextPart_000_00EB_01BE2C36.3C102620--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 20 23:22:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA13564;
	Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:21:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:21:46 -0800
Message-ID: <00a801be2cb2$60dc3e40$e1441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion From Second-Hand Smoke?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:20:13 -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: <"hiW-E.0.sJ3.9SVVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25413
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The Accelerator Produced Tritium (APT) scheme that slams protons into
tungsten to get spallation neutrons that knock a proton off of Helium 3 to
produce Tritium raises the possibility that Fullerenes or Nanotubes (they
say these are in tobacco smoke)filled with
Deuterium at 5 lbs of D2/lb Fullerenes, if slammed into tungsten at only 10
to 20 Kev should spall neutrons off the Deuterium and cause O-U/CF effects.
:-)

Short of this, Fullerenes or Nanotubes filled
with Pennzoil and given an electric charge in a chamber (the coal bin), and
sorted from neutrals with a mass spectrometer or "bent gun" and
accelerated,should make a rocket comparable to shoveling coal out the back
end.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 10:59:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11144;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:52:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:52:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981221135140.00820ca0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:51:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Thought for the day
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3-LTc1.0.yj2.MZfVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25414
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



  One hundred years ago today, Dec. 21, 1898, 
Pierre and Marie Curie discovered radium.

  Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 11:03:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12712;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:57:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:57:31 -0800
Message-ID: <000b01be2d13$8f65e200$4e441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: A  First/Last Cut at an AntiGrav Belt???
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:55:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jc1KW.0.S63.RefVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25415
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

A look at SuperString/String-Circle Theory suggests that Unipolar Pulses on
a suitable
1.0 Meter Current Loop will exert 380 Newtons
(85 pounds)of Attractive or Repulsive force
against the Earth's Gravitational Field.

So... A battery, a MOSFET or IGBT, and a pulser
operating at 23,060 pulses/second, and a few turns of magnet wire around
your waist....

DO NOT TRY THIS *AFTER* YOU LEAP FROM THE SEARS TOWER!

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 12:46:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA12126;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:43:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:43:51 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03130300b2a4621e5e6b [12.64.4.31]>
In-Reply-To: <000b01be2d13$8f65e200$4e441d26 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:39:59 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: A  First/Last Cut at an AntiGrav Belt???
Resent-Message-ID: <"4NnER1.0.Iz2.7ChVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25416
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick -

   >  So... A battery, a MOSFET or IGBT, and a pulser
   >  operating at 23,060 pulses/second, and a few
   >  turns of magnet wire around your waist....

Reminds me of Newman's balloon. Pulsed DC on some windings of magnet wire
around a big cylindrical balloon, if I recall.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 13:44:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27505;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:41:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:41:41 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <367EB34D.1670 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:45:01 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER for AAAS at Anaheim!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FdTMr.0.hj6.L2iVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25417
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

December 21, 1998

 AAAS wrote:
 
 LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER AT DISCOUNTED RATES!
 
 Today is the LAST DAY to register for the AAAS Annual Meeting and  
Science Innovation Exposition at the discounted rates!  After today you 
will need to register on-site at higher rates*.
 
 Don't miss this event! Hear talks by...
 
 *Michael Crichton, Author and Producer
 *David Baltimore, Caltech
 *Neal Lane, OSTP
 *Rita Colwell, NSF
 *And hundreds more!!
 
 See  <www.aaas.org/meetings/scope> for a registration form and a 
complete program.
 
 *Credit card registrations at advanced rates will be accepted through
 December 23, 1998.
 _______________________________________________________________________
 AAAS ANNUAL MEETING & SCIENCE INNOVATION EXPOSITION
 JANUARY 21-26, 1999
 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 14:56:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18127;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:50:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:50:30 -0800
Message-ID: <004701be2d34$1af58580$4e441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: A  First/Last Cut at an AntiGrav Belt???
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:48:04 -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: <"bDswb2.0.5R4.s2jVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25418
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: Monday, December 21, 1998 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: A First/Last Cut at an AntiGrav Belt???


Rick wrote:
>
>Reminds me of Newman's balloon. Pulsed DC on some windings of magnet wire
>around a big cylindrical balloon, if I recall.

Any idea what the pulse rate was, Rick?

The 380 Newtons is based on an Ampere-Meter, or a coulomb-meter/second. When
you go to pulses at a rep-rate of 23,060/second (not very wide to save
energy)and the ability to vary start time for synch, you might end up with
long
non-inductive current loops and kilo-amps/pulse.

You still need some 60 Megajoules/kg to escape
the Earth's g-field or 9.8 joules/sec (9.8 watts) to lift a kilogram, one
meter high in a second.

What Newman is this?

Regards,   Frederick
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 19:22:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03027;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:20:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:20:47 -0800
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:12:39 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Experimental electrolysis electrodes (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981221221234.29162B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qFPpV1.0.1l.C0nVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25419
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:12:22 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Experimental electrolysis electrodes


	Dear Folks,
	
	Some associates of mine are developing some proprietary
experimental electrodes for water electrolysis.  No OU claims, we are just
trying to up efficiency....we don't have figures yet.  The proprietary
aspect is the method of manufacture.  They and I can create electrodes
with several types of materials.  Metals, oxides and catalysts are some of
the materials.  Mostly we are doing 'requests' or you can use what we are
trying, usually Fe, Pt, Mo, Mn ... and so on.  The method is not cheap at
present but we hope to lower costs in volume.  BUT:  We don't know what
materials are best... yet. 
	If you want to work with us, here at the beginning, contact me off
line and we can possibly create from your target materials, or you can
purchase some of the ones we are trying.  This is sort of a cooperative
'bootstrap' effort.  We have one material set which demonstrates gas
evolution starting at 500 to 550 millivolts....  we are getting this with 
Mn, Fe and Ni as starting materials....  too soon to tell which is 
"best"... 
	The electrolyte chemistry also plays a part and we have some 
additives which can reduce the gas insulating effect.
	Proceeds go to improving our knowledge, this is the 'bootstrap' 
part. If an when we get something in the 80% or better range, then we 
will try to go into production and everyone can have H and O materials. 
We would also like to hear what you think a good way to measure 
efficiency is.  The method we are to be using is graduated cyliders to 
collect the gas, batteries to run the thing and voltage and current 
measurement directly at the battery, this way any losses in controls 
circuitry are reflected in the whole.

				JHS


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 21 20:10:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18382;
	Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:08:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:08:39 -0800
Message-ID: <19981222040902.12159.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:09:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"t3CTU.0.zU4.6jnVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25420
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:

> I broke off a small (~2mm) piece of a uranium mineral specimen and
placed
> it in the center of the chamber directly on the Al plate.  After 10-15
> minutes, in a darkened room with side illumination from a strong
> flashlight, you can see the most beautiful "fireworks display"
around the
> piece of ore.  Most the the tracks are about 2 cm long, very narrow
at the
> source and widening steadily until the end where they are maybe 3 mm
wide.
> I think these are alphas.  Rarely you see a very narrow ~5 cm long
track
> that does not widen noticeably....betas?

   It doesn't seem like they are betas. Beta trajectories through gas
tend to have some zig-zag or random dirction changes, not a straight
line. 

> Background/cosmic rays are also noticeable.  Some of them appear to
curve
> smoothly thru ~90 degrees around a ~1 cm radius!?

   This one has me stumped. Smooth bending normally requires a strong
magnetic field.

   How do you know they are cosmic rays? Background radiation includes
radon and residual plutonium in the air, plus radiation from the earth
below.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 22 05:52:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA17358;
	Tue, 22 Dec 1998 05:51:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 05:51:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981222075232.00857100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:52:32 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
In-Reply-To: <19981222040902.12159.rocketmail send105.yahoomail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"7P0-O1.0.7F4.jFwVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25421
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:09 PM 12/21/98 -0800, Michael Schaffer wrote:

>>Rarely you see a very narrow ~5 cm long track that does not widen
>>noticeably....betas?

>   It doesn't seem like they are betas. Beta trajectories through gas
>tend to have some zig-zag or random dirction changes, not a straight
>line. 

OK, it was just a guess.  I found Wilson's book "Principles of Cloud
Chamber Technique" (in the physics library storage facility!) and hopefully
I'll be able to identify these soon.

>> Some of them appear to curve smoothly thru ~90 degrees around a ~1 cm
>>radius!?

>This one has me stumped. Smooth bending normally requires a strong
>magnetic field.

Indeed.  I suppose it could be multiple scattering to make a facted curve
but I never noticed any zig-zag ones...  The curved tracks were quite
rare...we saw perhaps 5 of them in 2 hours of viewing.

>   How do you know they are cosmic rays? Background radiation includes
>radon and residual plutonium in the air, plus radiation from the earth
>below.

Good point.  I just know they didn't originate from the source (they
remained when I took it out).  But residual PLUTONIUM....!  Surely the
level of THAT is so low as to be indetectable in this manner.  The
background tracks had a distinctive appearance...I'll try to learn what
they are from the book.


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 Dec 22 08:40:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04597;
	Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:35:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:35:24 -0800
Message-ID: <008c01be2dc8$ddbcce40$4e441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: neutrons in cloud chamber
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:32:57 -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: <"fBg982.0.e71.AfyVs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25422
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott wrote:

Snip "seeing strange cloud tracks".

An electron at 0.022 ev will sweep a radius in the 5.0E-5 Tesla Geomagnetic
Field:

R = m*v/q*B  = .01 meters, v = 8.8E4 meters/sec

Now, a Light Lepton of Mass n*Me*alpha^(+/-)n'

will have a velocity v ~= c  at:

Mrel = Mo[V*q/(Mo*c^2)+1]

Thus a 0.2 ev Light Lepton made from a 0.4 ev (3.1 micron)photon in a 1.0 ev
field:

Mrel = 6*Mo, Mo = (.2/.511E6)*9.1E-31 = 3.56E-37 Kg.  Mrel = 6*Mo =
2.136E-36 Kg.

Then in Geomagnetic field R = 2.136E-36*3E8/q*B
= 8.0E-5 meters.  :-)

Then again the "strange"tracks could be dust mote ions that are everywhere.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 22 17:52:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA14560;
	Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:49:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:49:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2a5ed99833b [208.228.222.161]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:56:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Note on electron-proton effects
Resent-Message-ID: <"tX4XV.0.QZ3.Dm4Ws" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25423
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have posted here the idea that a sufficiently energetic electron, i.e.
with a sufficiently small wavelength, less than ground state radius, gains
energy upon approaching a nucleus,  which, if radiated away in the vicinity
of the nucleus, provides a mechanism by which ZPE expands the wavelength of
the captured electron, freeing it to some degree from the high energy bond
with the nucleus.  The more radiation occurs in the vicinity of the
nucleus, the greater the electron wavelength upon departing the nucleus,
comparred to its wavelength at equivalent radii upon entering, thus the
less net attractive force upon departing.  The difference in energy gained
upon approaching vs that required to depart the nucleus, is the energy
gained from the ZPE sea by the transaction.  Therefore every single
transaction of this kind involving electron radiation should gain net
energy.

Also, I have suggested that an energetic small wavelength electron forms a
bond with a nucleus, especially a hydrogen nucleus, that momentarily makes
it into a small radius high "ionization protential" pseudo-atom.  In the
case of a deuterium nucleus, the result migh be considered a low energy
pseudo di-neutron.  If the target nucleus is in the the close vicinity of
atoms in the direction of electron travel, then the momentum exhcange of
the electron with the nucleus will carry the pseudo atom into the vicinity
of the neighboring atom where nucleus tunneling probability grows large
fast with decreasing distance.  This mechanism might explaing some amount
of low energy nuclear transmutation, especially in protium-nickel
experiments.  This mechanism does not srike me as the principle source of
CF energy, however.  The ZPE extraction mechanism seems far easier to
initiate, more liklely to produce energy in small increments, and provides
energy without characteristic fusion ash.

Unfortunately the energy required to initiate either of the above
mechanisms is high, on the order of over 10 keV, too high to be made
available by means of heat or chemcical energy.

With this background, the main objective of this post is to point out the
advantage of accelerating electrons, vs H nuclei, to achieve the low
wavelength interaction.  It could be expected that, since all motion is
relative, it doesn't make any difference which is accelerated to achieve
the intended low wavelength reaction.  This would be true if we had a high
energy ambient source of hydrogen nucleii.  However, we do not.  The inital
state of either particle is low energy relative to the device.  Therefore
we must accelerate one or the other from near zero velocity.  The
significant fact then, is that the electron wavelength is dependent upon
the momentum, not the energy.  Since the mass of the electron is at least
three orders of magnitude smaller than the hydrogen nucleus, we get a much
smaller electron wavelength by accelerating the electron vs the nucleus,
for a given amount of expended energy.  An electron accelerator is
therefore a much more energy efficient catalyst for the proposed reactions
than a proton accelerator.

Also notable is that electron penetration depth is poor and that x-rays are
generated by the electron impact, but x-rays are especially useful for
energizing electrons deep within the metal hydride lattice.  The x-rays are
a very useful byproduct, and perhaps even the main product for initiating
bulk reactions.  The x-rays tend to reflect from the target surface in a
direction the electrons might bounce.  The angle of (electron) incidence is
the (high probability) angle of x-ray reflection.  For these reasons, a
metal hydride electron target should be engineered to make use of the
x-rays.  The target electrode should consist of opposing surfaces that each
absorb the x-rays emitted from the opposed surface.  For this reason, the
target might best consist of 90 deg. opposing surfaces each at 45 deg. to
the beam.  This might be achieved by using a corregated metal hydride
electrode:



         |    | HV Cathode
         \/\/\/ Electron source

        vacuum

            HV anode side
   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/  corrugated metal hydride electrode (grounded)
          LV Cathode side

         electrolyte

  ===========================---  LV anode


  Top view - HV electron catalysed ZPE energy pumping cell


The metal hydride electrode might also consist of a conical hole or holes
bored into the hydride electrode on the electron impinging side.

The HV side of the hydride electrode might achieve a better efficiency if
coated with a thin layer of gold to impede diffusion into the vacuum, but
still permit electron and x-ray penetration.

Happy Holidays,

Horace Heffner


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 23 03:22:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA29740;
	Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:22:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:22:07 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:21:59 +0000 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: OU Double coil
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981223111656.22048A-101000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-851401618-914412119=:22048"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ro8CK.0.YG7.V9DWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25424
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.

---559023410-851401618-914412119=:22048
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Dear Vortex,

Attachment of word97 doc zipped up with pkzip. Its simple and worked out.
Will build over break. Please can someone forward to freenrg-l?

Apologies to those who tried to contact me (Hamdi and Mark Twain). Tried
to respond but email problems on iesun9. Got side tracked because of work
and forgot for many weeks.

Will be distributing copies to other people and some in paper form to
London Group.

Have a Merry Christmas and an OU New Year.
Remi.


---559023410-851401618-914412119=:22048
Content-Type: APPLICATION/ZIP; name="coil.zip"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
Content-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981223112159.22048B exeter>
Content-Description: 
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---559023410-851401618-914412119=:22048--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 23 03:37:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA01992;
	Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:37:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:37:12 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:36:59 +0000 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981223111656.22048A-101000 exeter>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981223113318.22048K-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"C66iC3.0.2V.dNDWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25425
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo,

The key point is to avoid electrical work when establishing the current in
the inductor. One does this by winding a closely coupled counter coil that
is shorted next to it. The fields cancel and it looks like a bit of wire.

Unshort the counter coil and the core gets exposed to the primary coil's
'H' field we have 1/2BH energy stored in the field. The primary doesn't do
electrical work as the induction flux imposes itself on the primary. We
then let the primary current collapse and reconfigure the secondary to
extract power.
Remi.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 23 12:17:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29566;
	Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:13:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:13:37 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:20:45 -0500
Message-ID: <01be2eb1$b8686110$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: <"2qiL03.0.sD7.mxKWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25426
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Remi,
You wrote:

>
>The key point is to avoid electrical work when establishing the current in
>the inductor. One does this by winding a closely coupled counter coil that
>is shorted next to it. The fields cancel and it looks like a bit of wire.
>
So far this is essentially correct.
>
>Unshort the counter coil and the core gets exposed to the primary coil's
>'H' field we have 1/2BH energy stored in the field.
>
This is not what happens. When you unshort the secondary, the current
in both windings immediately goes to zero. It can subsequently increase
with an L/R time constant with energy provided  by the primary voltage
source. Think of it this way, there was no net current in the paired 
primary and secondary coils at the time S2 was opened. Net magnetic energy is
what is required to be continuous in a closely coupled inductor, not the
current in any winding.
-
You have reached step one in the Zen of bifilar coils.
-
George Holz  - george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 24 03:38:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA14418;
	Thu, 24 Dec 1998 03:37:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 03:37:29 -0800
Message-ID: <005e01be2f31$95d638e0$dd441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  LANL Loses Production Of Tritium (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/1tritium12-23
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:33:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE2EF6.8B3E48E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"XUlm22.0.CX3.uTYWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25427
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_000E_01BE2EF6.8B3E48E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            last updated:
            Wednesday, 23-Dec-98 11:19:24


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            SPECIAL PROJECTS
            Millennium

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Beaten at the Border

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Trinity: 50 Years Later


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            NATIONAL NEWS
            New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            The Nando Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            RealAudio: ABC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            USA Today

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            NewsLink


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
            MAGAZINES
            TIME Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            USNews Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Wired Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
           =20
           =20
            Return to the NEWS page =20
           =20
               =20


                Wednesday, December 23, 1998
               =20
                LANL Loses Production Of Tritium
                Research To Continue; Layoffs Not Expected
               =20

                By Ian Hoffman
                Journal Staff Writer
                 Los Alamos National Laboratory lost a piece Tuesday of =
a federal project to make an essential nuclear-weapons fuel -- yet still =
retained millions of dollars of design work on a machine that might =
never be built.=20
                 Energy Secretary Bill Richardson named a nuclear-power =
reactor in Tennessee as the nation's future factory for tritium, a =
radioactive gas without which U.S. nuclear weapons would fizzle.=20
                =20
----------------------------------------------------                     =
      =20
                            OTHER INFO  =20
                            Los Alamos National Laboratory's tritium =
page: http://apt.lanl.gov/=20
                            DOE statement announcing Richardson's =
decision: http://198.124.130.244/news/releases98/decpr/pr98200.htm  =20

----------------------------------------------------                     =
      =20
                             =20
                It is the nation's first move in at least 35 years to =
produce a key weapons ingredient in a civilian nuclear facility, and =
several arms-control groups have pledged to oppose it.=20
                 The choice also was a letdown for 700 workers -- almost =
600 lab and contract employees in Los Alamos -- who pushed a competing =
idea to make tritium in what would have been the world's most powerful =
particle accelerator.=20
                 Yet breeding the gas inside the Tennessee Valley =
Authority's Watts Bar reactor emerged as the simplest and least costly =
way to make the world's most expensive substance. The reactor choice =
lets the nation tailor its tritium production to potential cuts in the =
U.S. nuclear arsenal, Richardson pointed out.=20
                 "It allows us to produce tritium when we need it," =
Richardson said. "It's solid on arms-control grounds. It's good for the =
taxpayer. It gives us the financial and arms-control flexibility we =
need."=20
                 Had the accelerator idea prevailed, Los Alamos lab and =
contractors in New Mexico would have received more than $880 million =
while designing and building the accelerator at Savannah River Site near =
Aiken, S.C.=20
                 They already have spent close to $400 million.=20
                 Richardson softened the blow by continuing design of =
the accelerator, without building it. In a flurry of Tuesday morning =
calls, the former New Mexico congressman assured lab executives and =
federal lawmakers that his choice would not force layoffs among the =
lab's 400 employees on the accelerator project.=20
                 "The secretary told me that our people should not be =
concerned about their jobs," said LANL director John Browne in a =
statement.=20
                 Browne and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said they were =
disappointed by the choice. They heaped praise on the Los Alamos team =
for pushing accelerator science and proving the feasibility of a proton =
beam 100 times more powerful than any other.=20
                 Richardson also rejected making tritium in an as-yet =
unfinished civilian reactor in Alabama -- the TVA's preference -- as =
well as an experimental DOE reactor at Hanford Reservation in =
Washington.=20
                 Congress reserved the chance to debate Richardson's =
choice over most of next year.=20
                 U.S. weapons designers use tritium to squeeze at least =
five times more power out of the A-bombs that trigger modern H-bombs. As =
a result, they made the world's lightest and smallest nuclear weapons.=20
                 Half of tritium decays every 12.4 years to a helium gas =
that actually poisons nuclear fission, so the tritium in weapons is =
replenished regularly. The DOE has refilled its weapons with tritium =
recycled from dismantled weapons since 1988, when the department shut =
down its last production reactor for safety reasons.=20
                 Arms-control and anti-nuclear activists contend the =
nation needs no new source of tritium because its arsenal is likely to =
decline in numbers, freeing more tritium for recycling.=20
                 Forced to decide on tritium production, however, =
activists and their allies in Congress are sharply divided, with many =
arguing that making weapons tritium in a civilian reactor sends the =
wrong message to nations seeking nuclear weapons, such as Iraq.=20
                 "We cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a =
bar stool," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.=20
                 Yet others praised Richardson for not investing =
billions of dollars in a permanent defense accelerator for making =
tritium.=20
                 "One of the purposes of arms control is to preserve =
resources for things that are important to people. And the secretary has =
done that," said Christopher E. Paine, a leading nuclear-weapons analyst =
with the Natural Resources Defense Council.=20
                 "He picked the right option," Paine said. "It makes =
much more sense to do what he did than to build a $6 billion white =
elephant at Savannah River."=20
                 Plans for the accelerator would be developed as a =
"backup" for the reactor. Richardson still has not decided the level of =
funding and extent of design work. DOE analysts in July figured full =
design would cost about $600 million and take until 2002, but =
top-ranking DOE officials dismissed those numbers as outdated.=20
                 "I think we're anticipating a steady level of funding =
for a period of time to come while they (LANL and contractors) complete =
critical development and design elements," said Joan Rohlfing, the =
senior national-security adviser to Richardson.=20
                 Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he is convinced the =
accelerator will be built one day. Watts Bar must be relicensed for =
tritium production by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Domenici =
fears activists could use the licensing process to delay tritium =
production for years.=20
                 "I think it's just very risky to allow the integrity of =
our nuclear deterrence to rest on a licensing process at the NRC," he =
said in a statement.=20
               =20

           =20
           =20
           =20
                TOP
           =20
            Copyright =A9 1997, 1998 Albuquerque Journal

            =20
           =20
           =20
            =20


------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE2EF6.8B3E48E0
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>ABQjournal News: LANL Loses Production =
Of Tritium</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www.abqjournal.com/news/1tritium12-23.htm>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D../base/back1.gif bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><A name=3Dtop>
<TABLE border=3D0 width=3D590>
    <TBODY>
    <TR align=3Dleft>
        <TD align=3Dmiddle vAlign=3Dtop width=3D95><A =
href=3D"../default.htm"><IMG=20
            align=3Dcenter border=3D0 src=3D"../base/abqj.gif" =
width=3D95></A><BR>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><FONT size=3D-1>last updated:<BR>Wednesday, 23-Dec-98 =
11:19:24
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><A href=3D"../border/default.htm"><STRONG>SPECIAL=20
            PROJECTS</STRONG></A><BR><A=20
            href=3D"../2000/2000.htm">Millennium</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"../border/border.htm">Beaten at the =
Border</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"../trinity/trinity.htm">Trinity: 50 Years =
Later</A>
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><STRONG>NATIONAL NEWS</STRONG><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com" target=3DNEW>New York =
Times</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www2.nando.net/nt/nando.cgi" =
target=3DNEW>The Nando=20
            Times</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.realaudio.com/contentp/abc.html"=20
            target=3DNEW>RealAudio: ABC News</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.cnn.com/US/index.html" =
target=3DNEW>CNN</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm" =
target=3DNEW>USA=20
            Today</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.newslink.org/" =
target=3DNEW>NewsLink</A>
            <P>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><STRONG>MAGAZINES</STRONG><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://pathfinder.com/time/" target=3DNEW>TIME =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.usnews.com/" target=3DNEW>USNews =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D20%>
            <A href=3D"http://www.wired.com/" target=3DNEW>Wired =
Magazine</A><BR>
            <HR width=3D50%>
            <BR><A href=3D"./default.htm"><IMG border=3D0=20
            src=3D"../base/back.gif"><BR>Return to the NEWS page</A>
            <CENTER></CENTER></FONT></TD>
        <TD width=3D45></TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D450>
            <CENTER>
            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1=20
            =
src=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_jx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/RMTT003">
<!-- --> <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/RMTT003"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/RMTT003"></a>
</SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript> <!--
_version=3D10; //--> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1> <!--
_version=3D11; // --> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript>
<!--=20
if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf('MSIE 3') !=3D -1){
document.write('<IFRAME WIDTH=3D468 HEIGHT=3D60 MARGINWIDTH=3D0 =
MARGINHEIGHT=3D0 HSPACE=3D0 VSPACE=3D0 FRAMEBORDER=3D0 SCROLLING=3Dno =
BORDERCOLOR=3D"#000000" BORDER=3D0 =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_sx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/RMTT003"></iframe>');=20
} else if (_version < 11) {
document.write ('<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/RMTT003?x"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/RMTT003?x"></a>');
}
// -->
</SCRIPT>

            <P><IMG align=3Dtop border=3D0 height=3D45 =
src=3D"../base/news.gif" vspace=3D4=20
            width=3D118><BR><A=20
            href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.map"><IMG =
align=3Dcenter=20
            border=3D0 height=3D50 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.gif" =
useMap=3D#wordmenu3=20
            width=3D450 ?></A><BR><MAP name=3Dwordmenu3><AREA=20
                coords=3D385,25,434,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/index"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D328,26,380,40=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/search?NS-collection=3Djnl_docs"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D308,26,325,39=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.tvquest.com/cgi-bin/gate2?t~tvquest/newspaper.html~nma=
ljo"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D240,26,305,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.adone.com/abqjournal" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D188,26,235,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/use/tourist.htm"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D102,26,184,38=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/venue" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D20,25,98,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D374,5,412,23=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/homes" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D330,5,370,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/health"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D282,6,326,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D234,7,278,23 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D179,5,230,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/weather" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D134,7,175,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/sports"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D79,5,130,25=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/biz" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D39,7,75,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/news"=20
                shape=3DRECT></MAP>
            <P></CENTER>
            <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=3D-1><B>Wednesday, December 23,=20
                1998</B><BR></FONT>
                <P><FONT size=3D+2><B>LANL Loses Production Of=20
                Tritium</B></FONT><BR><FONT size=3D+1><I><B>Research To =
Continue;=20
                Layoffs Not Expected</B></I></FONT><BR>
                <P><B>By Ian Hoffman</B><BR><I>Journal Staff =
Writer</I><BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Los =
Alamos National=20
                Laboratory lost a piece Tuesday of a federal project to =
make an=20
                essential nuclear-weapons fuel -- yet still retained =
millions of=20
                dollars of design work on a machine that might never be =
built.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Energy=20
                Secretary Bill Richardson named a nuclear-power reactor =
in=20
                Tennessee as the nation's future factory for tritium, a=20
                radioactive gas without which U.S. nuclear weapons would =
fizzle.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10>=20
                <TABLE align=3Dright border=3D0 hspace =3D 4>
                    <TBODY>
                    <TR>
                        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D50>
                            <HR SIZE=3D1>
                            <STRONG>OTHER INFO</STRONG> </TD>
                        <TD width=3D8></TD>
                    <TR>
                        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D50>Los Alamos National=20
                            Laboratory's tritium page: <A=20
                            =
href=3D"http://apt.lanl.gov/">http://apt.lanl.gov/</A>=20
                            <BR>DOE statement announcing Richardson's =
decision:=20
                            <A=20
                            =
href=3D"http://198.124.130.244/news/releases98/decpr/pr98200.htm">http://=
198.124.130.244/news/releases98/decpr/pr98200.htm</A>=20
                            </TD>
                        <TD width=3D8></TD>
                    <TR>
                        <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D50>
                            <HR SIZE=3D1>
                            </B></TD>
                        <TD =
width=3D8></TD></TR></FONT></TBODY></TABLE>It is the nation's=20
                first move in at least 35 years to produce a key weapons =

                ingredient in a civilian nuclear facility, and several=20
                arms-control groups have pledged to oppose it. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> The choice also =
was a letdown=20
                for 700 workers -- almost 600 lab and contract employees =
in Los=20
                Alamos -- who pushed a competing idea to make tritium in =
what=20
                would have been the world's most powerful particle =
accelerator.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Yet=20
                breeding the gas inside the Tennessee Valley Authority's =
Watts=20
                Bar reactor emerged as the simplest and least costly way =
to make=20
                the world's most expensive substance. The reactor choice =
lets=20
                the nation tailor its tritium production to potential =
cuts in=20
                the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Richardson pointed out. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
&quot;It allows us=20
                to produce tritium when we need it,&quot; Richardson =
said.=20
                &quot;It's solid on arms-control grounds. It's good for =
the=20
                taxpayer. It gives us the financial and arms-control =
flexibility=20
                we need.&quot; <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> Had the accelerator idea prevailed, Los =
Alamos lab and=20
                contractors in New Mexico would have received more than =
$880=20
                million while designing and building the accelerator at =
Savannah=20
                River Site near Aiken, S.C. <BR><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D1=20
                src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> They already have spent =
close to $400=20
                million. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Richardson softened the blow by continuing design of the =

                accelerator, without building it. In a flurry of Tuesday =
morning=20
                calls, the former New Mexico congressman assured lab =
executives=20
                and federal lawmakers that his choice would not force =
layoffs=20
                among the lab's 400 employees on the accelerator =
project.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> &quot;The=20
                secretary told me that our people should not be =
concerned about=20
                their jobs,&quot; said LANL director John Browne in a =
statement.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Browne and=20
                Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said they were disappointed =
by the=20
                choice. They heaped praise on the Los Alamos team for =
pushing=20
                accelerator science and proving the feasibility of a =
proton beam=20
                100 times more powerful than any other. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> Richardson also =
rejected=20
                making tritium in an as-yet unfinished civilian reactor =
in=20
                Alabama -- the TVA's preference -- as well as an =
experimental=20
                DOE reactor at Hanford Reservation in Washington. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
Congress reserved=20
                the chance to debate Richardson's choice over most of =
next year.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> U.S.=20
                weapons designers use tritium to squeeze at least five =
times=20
                more power out of the A-bombs that trigger modern =
H-bombs. As a=20
                result, they made the world's lightest and smallest =
nuclear=20
                weapons. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Half of tritium decays every 12.4 years to a helium gas =
that=20
                actually poisons nuclear fission, so the tritium in =
weapons is=20
                replenished regularly. The DOE has refilled its weapons =
with=20
                tritium recycled from dismantled weapons since 1988, =
when the=20
                department shut down its last production reactor for =
safety=20
                reasons. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10>=20
                Arms-control and anti-nuclear activists contend the =
nation needs=20
                no new source of tritium because its arsenal is likely =
to=20
                decline in numbers, freeing more tritium for recycling. =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
Forced to decide on=20
                tritium production, however, activists and their allies =
in=20
                Congress are sharply divided, with many arguing that =
making=20
                weapons tritium in a civilian reactor sends the wrong =
message to=20
                nations seeking nuclear weapons, such as Iraq. <BR><IMG =
border=3D0=20
                height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> &quot;We cannot =
credibly=20
                preach nuclear temperance from a bar stool,&quot; said =
Rep. Ed=20
                Markey, D-Mass. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> Yet others praised Richardson for not =
investing=20
                billions of dollars in a permanent defense accelerator =
for=20
                making tritium. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> &quot;One of the purposes of arms control is =
to=20
                preserve resources for things that are important to =
people. And=20
                the secretary has done that,&quot; said Christopher E. =
Paine, a=20
                leading nuclear-weapons analyst with the Natural =
Resources=20
                Defense Council. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> &quot;He picked the right option,&quot; =
Paine said.=20
                &quot;It makes much more sense to do what he did than to =
build a=20
                $6 billion white elephant at Savannah River.&quot; =
<BR><IMG=20
                border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" width=3D10> =
Plans for the=20
                accelerator would be developed as a &quot;backup&quot; =
for the=20
                reactor. Richardson still has not decided the level of =
funding=20
                and extent of design work. DOE analysts in July figured =
full=20
                design would cost about $600 million and take until =
2002, but=20
                top-ranking DOE officials dismissed those numbers as =
outdated.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> &quot;I=20
                think we're anticipating a steady level of funding for a =
period=20
                of time to come while they (LANL and contractors) =
complete=20
                critical development and design elements,&quot; said =
Joan=20
                Rohlfing, the senior national-security adviser to =
Richardson.=20
                <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D10> Sen. Pete=20
                Domenici, R-N.M., said he is convinced the accelerator =
will be=20
                built one day. Watts Bar must be relicensed for tritium=20
                production by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and =
Domenici=20
                fears activists could use the licensing process to delay =
tritium=20
                production for years. <BR><IMG border=3D0 height=3D1 =
src=3D"blank.gif"=20
                width=3D10> &quot;I think it's just very risky to allow =
the=20
                integrity of our nuclear deterrence to rest on a =
licensing=20
                process at the NRC,&quot; he said in a statement.=20
            <BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
            <CENTER><A =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.map"><IMG=20
            align=3Dcenter border=3D0 height=3D50 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/base/wordmenu.gif" =
useMap=3D#wordmenu3=20
            width=3D450 ?></A><BR><MAP name=3Dwordmenu3><AREA=20
                coords=3D385,25,434,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/index"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D328,26,380,40=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/search?NS-collection=3Djnl_docs"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D308,26,325,39=20
                =
href=3D"http://www.tvquest.com/cgi-bin/gate2?t~tvquest/newspaper.html~nma=
ljo"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D240,26,305,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.adone.com/abqjournal" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D188,26,235,40=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/use/tourist.htm"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D102,26,184,38=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/venue" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D20,25,98,40 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D374,5,412,23=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/homes" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D330,5,370,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/health"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D282,6,326,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D234,7,278,23 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D179,5,230,24=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/weather" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D134,7,175,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/sports"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D79,5,130,25=20
                href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/biz" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D39,7,75,24 =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/news"=20
                shape=3DRECT></MAP><FONT size=3D-1><A =
href=3D"#TOP">TOP</A><BR><!-- half banner house ads --><BR>Copyright=20
            &copy; 1997, 1998 Albuquerque Journal
            <P>
            <P><A =
href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/redirect/tvquest.htm"><IMG=20
            border=3D0 height=3D65=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/sm-tvbanner.gif"=20
            width=3D200></A><IMG height=3D10 src=3D"blank.gif" =
width=3D1> <A=20
            href=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/yp"><IMG border=3D0 =
height=3D65=20
            src=3D"http://www.abqjournal.com/ads/uswestbanner.gif"=20
            width=3D200></A><BR><!--call to real media for excess =
inventory ads --><BR>
            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1=20
            =
src=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_jx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir">
<!-- --> <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/dir"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir"></a>
</SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript> <!--
_version=3D10; //--> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript1.1> <!--
_version=3D11; // --> </SCRIPT>

            <SCRIPT language=3DJavaScript>
<!--=20
if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf('MSIE 3') !=3D -1){
document.write('<IFRAME WIDTH=3D468 HEIGHT=3D60 MARGINWIDTH=3D0 =
MARGINHEIGHT=3D0 HSPACE=3D0 VSPACE=3D0 FRAMEBORDER=3D0 SCROLLING=3Dno =
BORDERCOLOR=3D"#000000" BORDER=3D0 =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_sx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir"></iframe>');=20
} else if (_version < 11) {
document.write ('<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/click_nx.ads/www.abqjo=
urnal.com/dir?x"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.realmedia.com/RealMedia/rmedia4/adstream_nx.ads/www.abq=
journal.com/dir?x"></a>');
}
// -->
</SCRIPT>
            </CENTER></FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- This =
document was created using BeyondPress(TM) 2.0 -437694. --><!-- This =
document created using BeyondPress(TM) 4.0 For Macintosh =
--></A></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE2EF6.8B3E48E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 24 03:52:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16578;
	Thu, 24 Dec 1998 03:51:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 03:51:29 -0800
Message-ID: <008201be2f33$8e86f780$dd441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Department of Energy - News Release (http://198.124.130.244/news/releases98/dec
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:49:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE2EF8.D1E27940"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"CZcmP2.0.l24.1hYWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25428
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_0017_01BE2EF8.D1E27940
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



http://198.124.130.244/news/releases98/decpr/pr98200.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE2EF8.D1E27940
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Department of Energy - News Release.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Department of Energy - News Release.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://198.124.130.244/news/releases98/decpr/pr98200.htm
Modified=A0C5B652332FBE018E

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE2EF8.D1E27940--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 25 08:25:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27225;
	Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:24:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:24:45 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3683AEFF.5BDD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:27:59 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Not taking a chance
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"X4kfE2.0.Jf6.DnxWs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25429
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 25, 1998

To All vorts -b,-l,vortcor(?)

Decided not just to rely on telepathy:

Thanks for the year going past. And here's wishing you all a better year
to come!

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Dec 25 20:12:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA30215;
	Fri, 25 Dec 1998 20:11:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 20:11:16 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01be3085$b4cbeec0$9f441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Not taking a chance
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:09:57 -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: <"IdTmb3.0.xN7.Z76Xs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25430
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: Friday, December 25, 1998 9:25 AM
Subject: Not taking a chance

Akira wrote:


>December 25, 1998
>
>To All vorts -b,-l,vortcor(?)
>
>Decided not just to rely on telepathy:

No problem there,Akira. I think I picked you up
somewhere near the Disney Channel.  :-)
>
>Thanks for the year going past. And here's wishing you all a better year
>to come!

Back at you in triplicate!

Regards,    Frederick
>
>-AK-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 03:56:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA18812;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:55:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:55:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2aa800ab33c [208.228.222.121]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:04:09 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Not taking a chance
Resent-Message-ID: <"rJ4VY.0.sb4.BxCXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25431
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:09 PM 12/25/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: aki ix.netcom.com <aki@ix.netcom.com>
[snip]
>>Thanks for the year going past. And here's wishing you all a better year
>>to come!
>
>Back at you in triplicate!

Likewise.

Taking a chance on the psychic side, my New Years prediction is that 1999
will be a breakthrough year for new energy.  I just wonder if the public
will be aware of it!  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 05:07:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA25522;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 05:06:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 05:06:20 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b2aa8ab33483 [208.228.222.15]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:14:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Note on electron-proton effects
Resent-Message-ID: <"6U-vx.0.eE6.BzDXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25432
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 12/22/98 I posted:  "Unfortunately the energy required to initiate
either of the above mechanisms is high, on the order of over 10 keV, too
high to be made available by means of heat or chemcical energy."  I should
have noted that the ZPE tapping effects begin to happen in the vicinity of
2 keV, as posted prior in the "THE PARTIAL ORBITAL HYPOTHESIS OF COLD
FUSION" posted around 10/25/95.

It is also notable that CF results should be dramatically improved by use
of beta emitters in the cathode, and by use of a D-T electrolyte, both from
the improved D-T cross-section, and from the betas provided by the tritium
within the electrode.  Also, high energy radioactive sorces near the
cathode should catalyse reactions, in proportion higher than 1-1, due to
the stimulation of multiple high energy electrons within the cathode.

However, it seems to me the most dramatic proof of the suggested principles
would be obtained by stimulation of a protium loaded cathode with x-rays.
The x-rays should be of sufficient energy that a small fraction makes it
through the cathode, but low enough in energy that most are absorbed in the
cathode.  The objective would be to create 20+ keV electrons within the
lattice.  A high transmutation rate involving only protium and Ni,
especially one which correlates to total x-ray exposure, would have no good
alternative explanation.  Deuterium could be used, but it might be
suggested that the x-ray radiation is of sufficent energy to cause
stripping of the neutron from the D.  If protium is used, and a Ni cathode,
then it is OK to use overkill - massive amounts of x-rays over an extended
period of time.  The objective of this test is to only to generate
transmutation of the Ni, not excess heat.  Also, the x-rays should work
well over a wide range of energies, without any sharp deflections in a
reaction count vs x-ray energy plot, as might be expected with an
electron-deuteron interaction.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 15:01:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08009;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:00:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:00:22 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be3123$6f91e000$f7441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:58:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"RylcT3.0.3z1.6gMXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25433
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace, your 2 Kilovolt "tunneling" calculations work for an Electron-Proton
or Electron-Deuteron collisions, but don't do much for Proton-Proton or
Deuteron-Deuteron Tunneling. :-)

If you take the radius,R of a typical 300 Mev Quark:

R = 137.037*9E9*(1.6E-19)^2/[3E8*1.6E-19]= 6.6E-16 meters.This keeps the
spin velocity (mvr)from going to 137*c (the phase velocity)calculation.
Also the extends the radius of the Electron from the "Classical Radius" of
2.81E-15 meters to 3.86E-13 meters, again keeping the true spin velocity at
c rather than the 137*c "phase velocity".

The force between Two Deuterons at twice their Radius or about 1.5 Fermi
separation:

F = kq^2/R^2 = 2.3E-28/(2*6.6E-16)^2 = 132 newtons or about 30 POUNDS!

However, for an Electron-Deuteron "collision" at the 3.86E-13 meter Electron
Radius:

F = - kq^2/Re^2 = 2.304E-28/(3.86E-13)^2 =  -1.54E-3 Newtons.   :-)

Now, since the potential at the Bohr Radius is;
V = kq/2R = 1.44E-9/[2*5.29E-11] = 13.6 volts, the potential for an electron
separated by it's Radius from the Deuteron is: 1.44E-9/[2*3.86E-13] = 1865
volts.

However, since the Bohr radius is the zero or ground-state potential for the
Electron as evidenced by uv spectra, the 1865 volts must be a Positive
Potential required for forcing the electron close to the Deuteron, which is
close to your 2 kv calculation , which would require overcoming a Repulsive
Force of 1.54E-3 newtons before forming a Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair and
coupling to the Deuteron to "Neutralize" it.   :-)
Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 22:08:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22167;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:07:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:07:33 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be315f$1ceb7640$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:06:07 -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: <"vGrNV.0.8Q5.bwSXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25434
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>
To: vortexb-l eskimo.com <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, December 26, 1998 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers

Robin wrote:


>On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:58:44 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>However, since the Bohr radius is the zero or ground-state potential for
the
>>Electron as evidenced by uv spectra, the 1865 volts must be a Positive
>>Potential required for forcing the electron close to the Deuteron, which
is
>>close to your 2 kv calculation , which would require overcoming a
Repulsive
>>Force of 1.54E-3 newtons before forming a Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair and
>>coupling to the Deuteron to "Neutralize" it.   :-)
>>Regards,   Frederick
>According to Charles Cagle's theory, electrons and protons do indeed
>repel one another when the distance between them is less than the
>DeBroglie wavelength in CM frame of reference.
>Now the DeBroglie wavelength is h/p. While in the hydrogen atom ground
>state, the distance between the electron and the proton is h-stripe/p.
>So I personally suspect that Charles is almost right, but should be
>using h-stripe rather than h.

I went through this, Robin, and it is quite interesting.

However, a "centrifugal"force balance approach:

mv^2/R = k*q^2/R^2 = 1.54E-3 newtons

>From this velocity v = 2.56E7 meters/second and
V = 1865 volts. the de Broglie/Compton wavelength hbar/p = 4.464E-12
doesn't quite
square with the Compton wavelength 2(pi)R = 2.425E-12 meters.??  :-)

Does this mean that an incoming electron has a centrifugal barrier to
overcome?
>
>Happy New Year.

You too,Robin.  :-)

Regards,  Frederick
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 22:39:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA26868;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:35:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:35:22 -0800
Message-ID: <001401be3162$ffc4dbc0$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:33:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"uweg91.0.hZ6.fKTXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25435
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

BTW, Robin.

Davis and Barnes did an elegant but simple experiment using He++ ions (alpha
particles)
at set velocities to synchronize the 13.6Z^2 or
54.4 ev electrons and hang them on the alphas ca. 1928.

It was published in the physics literature, but I don't recall which one.

The point was that there were "resonance" velocities of the electrons
required for attachment.

Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 23:40:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07872;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:39:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:39:38 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b2ab943165ac [208.228.222.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:47:48 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Resent-Message-ID: <"17Znx2.0.rw1.vGUXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25436
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:06 PM 12/26/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>
>To: vortexb-l eskimo.com <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Saturday, December 26, 1998 7:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
>
>Robin wrote:

[snip]

What are the rules now???  I thought (a) serious discussion of experimental
results goes to vortcore (b) serious discussion of free energy related
things goes to vortex-l (c) unlimited discussion goes to vortexb, espcially
UFO's psychic phenomenon, etc. (d) hobbyist level and how-to discussion of
free energy experiments goes to freenrg-l, and posting to multiple lists
simultaneously was forbidden.

Why is Robin responding from vortexb?

Why is Fred spamming?  (Yet, without the spamming I would not have a clue
that Robin was discussing the subject.)

Personally, I have not subscribed to vortexb and do not intend to again for
some time due to being heavily involved in projects.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Dec 26 23:59:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA12852;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:59:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:59:26 -0800
Message-ID: <002901be316e$bcb51460$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:57:59 -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: <"WyYbc3.0.g83.TZUXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25437
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Robin wrote:

>>According to Charles Cagle's theory, electrons and protons do indeed
>>repel one another when the distance between them is less than the
>>DeBroglie wavelength in CM frame of reference.
>>Now the DeBroglie wavelength is h/p. While in the hydrogen atom ground
>>state, the distance between the electron and the proton is h-stripe/p.
>>So I personally suspect that Charles is almost right, but should be
>>using h-stripe rather than h.

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>
>I went through this, Robin, and it is quite interesting.
>
>However, a "centrifugal"force balance approach:
>
>mv^2/R = k*q^2/R^2 = 1.54E-3 newtons
>
>>From this velocity v = 2.56E7 meters/second and
>V = 1865 volts. the de Broglie/Compton wavelength hbar/p = 4.464E-12
>doesn't quite
>square with the Compton wavelength 2(pi)R = 2.425E-12 meters.??  :-)
>
>Does this mean that an incoming electron has a centrifugal barrier to
>overcome?

If the electron's radius is 3.86E-13 meters and it tries to "Orbit" a 1.3
Fermi diameter point charge, 2(Pi)times it's diameter WILL NOT let it fit
into the 2(pi)R Compton Wavelength (2.425E-12 meters).  From simple geometry
it looks like Charlie Cagle is correct on that issue.   :-)

However, the electron (string-circle)can ENCIRCLE the point-like Deuteron or
Proton and meet the Compton Wavelength "orbit" requirement.

Then it can shrink into the proton or deuteron whilst forming a
Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair by borrowing mass-energy from the nucleus and by
expelling the neutrino form a Light Neutron or
in the case of the deuteron, a neutron pair.

Chancey at best, isn't it?   :-)

Regards,   Frederick






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 00:10:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA15082;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:09:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:09:55 -0800
Message-ID: <002e01be3170$352a10c0$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <fstenger interlaced.net>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:09:10 -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: <"DvWIT2.0.Wh3.IjUXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25438
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>; vortexb-l@eskimo.com
<vortexb-l eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers

Horace wrote:


>At 11:06 PM 12/26/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>
>>To: vortexb-l eskimo.com <vortexb-l@eskimo.com>
>>Date: Saturday, December 26, 1998 7:18 PM
>>Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
>>
>>Robin wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>What are the rules now???  I thought (a) serious discussion of experimental
>results goes to vortcore (b) serious discussion of free energy related
>things goes to vortex-l (c) unlimited discussion goes to vortexb, espcially
>UFO's psychic phenomenon, etc. (d) hobbyist level and how-to discussion of
>free energy experiments goes to freenrg-l, and posting to multiple lists
>simultaneously was forbidden.
>
>Why is Robin responding from vortexb?
>
>Why is Fred spamming?  (Yet, without the spamming I would not have a clue
>that Robin was discussing the subject.)
>
>Personally, I have not subscribed to vortexb and do not intend to again for
>some time due to being heavily involved in projects.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

SPAMMING? WHY YOU WASAFRATS> :-)

I responded to your vortex-l message and sent a copy to vortexb, whereupon
Robin responded.  Then to keep you informed due to your "busy schedule" with
polaROIDS and iceyBMs I posted back on vortexb AND vortex-l, perfectly in
compliance with both lists/topics. :-)

If you are THAT BUSY I suggest you might try listening to the radio.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 00:30:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA21784;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:27:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:27:52 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b2ab9b01ff5f [208.228.222.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:36:00 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Resent-Message-ID: <"bXt9m2.0.EK5.8-UXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25439
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:58 PM 12/26/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>Horace, your 2 Kilovolt "tunneling" calculations work for an Electron-Proton
>or Electron-Deuteron collisions, but don't do much for Proton-Proton or
>Deuteron-Deuteron Tunneling. :-)

The calculations I presented were not intended to relate to electron
tunneling at all.  They were only intended to relate to minimum conditions
for the electron to gain energy upon approaching the nucleus.  The
conditions for ZPE pumping are fairly minimal.  I quote from my 1995 post
outlining this: "Now: p=h/L, where p=mv so: mv=h/L,
v*(9.11E-31kg)=(6.626E-34 joule*sec)/(0.32E-10 m), v=2.273E7m/sec.  Looking
at energy, E=.5mv^2=(.5)(9.11E-31kg)(2.27E7)^2, E=2.353E-16joule/(1.602
E-19 joule/eV)=1470 eV.  So a minimal energy electron to initiate the
process should be about 1470 eV, quite a bit to get inside a lattice!  This
can not be accomplished by temperature alone because 1eV=1.15E4 deg K, so
the temperature would be 1470*1.16E4=17,000,000 deg K.  It would appear
that, in the absence of a strong magnetic field, the main objective then to
initiate the cold fusion effect is to get 2-3 keV electrons busy inside the
lattice.  Cosmic rays readily can do this, as well as a lattice fractures.
HV pulses might accomplish this at the lattice/electrolyte boundary if the
electrolyte is not too conductive, or EM pulses might do this, especially
if conductor/insulator boundaries are present in the electrode.  It seems
like the most effective method would be putting beta emitters in the
lattice.  This could be accomplished by using a T2O electrolyte (18.6 KeV
beta), or spiking the lattice metal with beta emitters.  Even alpha
emitters, disrupting lattice electrons, should work."

However, I think electron tunneling has two key effects: (1) delay of the
electron upon departure from the vicinity of the nucleus due to repeated
tunneling back towards the nucleus (thus helping delay the shielding
effect) and (2) radiation associated with each tunneling event due to the
field collapse at one location and reinflation around the post-tunneling
center of charge.

>
>If you take the radius,R of a typical 300 Mev Quark:
>
>R = 137.037*9E9*(1.6E-19)^2/[3E8*1.6E-19]= 6.6E-16 meters.This keeps the
>spin velocity (mvr)from going to 137*c (the phase velocity)calculation.
>Also the extends the radius of the Electron from the "Classical Radius" of
>2.81E-15 meters to 3.86E-13 meters, again keeping the true spin velocity at
>c rather than the 137*c "phase velocity".
>
>The force between Two Deuterons at twice their Radius or about 1.5 Fermi
>separation:
>
>F = kq^2/R^2 = 2.3E-28/(2*6.6E-16)^2 = 132 newtons or about 30 POUNDS!


Proton or deuteron tunneling probability or half-life vs distance is an
area about which I have very little information.  In my past reading I have
somewhere seen data that indicate a very long distance for proton
tunneling, much longer than you would think based on the reach of the
strong force, and much longer than a few fermi.  After all, proton
tunneling between atoms is proposed as the primary current carrying
mechanism in electrolytes!  The proton can tunnel angstrom level distances,
but the probability is very small, the half-life long compared to
electron-proton collision times.  The tunneling half-life starts getting
much shorter for both protons and deuterons at about 0.1 angstroms, and the
half life is very short at 0.01 angstoms.  (Don't forget there is a finite
probabilty of tunneling at *any* radius.) The energy to provide shielding
at 0.1 to 0.01 angstroms is far less that that required to get two nucleii
within reach of the strong force.   The whole process is a trade off of
time in proximity vs tunneling half-life at that distance.  I don't recall
for sure, but think the muon catalysed atom is characteristically between
1/10 and 1/100 the size of the ordinary hydrogen atom at the time of
nucleus tunneling.

In the view of CF I have proposed here, though, the nucleus tunneling
provides only a very small fraction of the energy of CF.  Most of the
energy comes from ZPE pumping, which takes far less energy to initialte.
However, nucleus tunneling *does* have to account for 100 percent of the
transmutation, which is why I see the x-ray based transmutation experiment
as definitive regarding that part of my conjecture.

It would be very helpful if someone could provide tunneling half-life vs
distance data or information for D-D reactions, or other similar reactions.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 00:44:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA25619;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:43:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:43:54 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b2aba275bfa0 [208.228.222.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:52:06 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Resent-Message-ID: <"LB7ew2.0.DG6.ADVXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25440
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:57 AM 12/27/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>>
>>However, a "centrifugal"force balance approach:
>>
>>mv^2/R = k*q^2/R^2 = 1.54E-3 newtons
>>
>>>From this velocity v = 2.56E7 meters/second and
>>V = 1865 volts. the de Broglie/Compton wavelength hbar/p = 4.464E-12
>>doesn't quite
>>square with the Compton wavelength 2(pi)R = 2.425E-12 meters.??  :-)
>>
>>Does this mean that an incoming electron has a centrifugal barrier to
>>overcome?

For the brief moment the electron waveform overlaps the nucleus waveform
(assuming a dead-on perfect hit) there is *no net force* between them.
True?

>
>If the electron's radius is 3.86E-13 meters and it tries to "Orbit" a 1.3
>Fermi diameter point charge, 2(Pi)times it's diameter WILL NOT let it fit
>into the 2(pi)R Compton Wavelength (2.425E-12 meters).  From simple geometry
>it looks like Charlie Cagle is correct on that issue.   :-)


There is no reason to expect a high energy electron to "orbit" the nucleus
upon approach.  At best only a "partial orbital" would be assumed, true?
In fact, even the nature of the ionic bond in the metal lattice consists of
repeated partial orbitals from electrons from each of the adjacent lattice
atoms, no complete orbitals, true?


>
>However, the electron (string-circle)can ENCIRCLE the point-like Deuteron or
>Proton and meet the Compton Wavelength "orbit" requirement.

Similar is true if the electron is viewed as a 3D quantum waveform psi, but
there is no "orbiting" requirement, only superposition.

>
>Then it can shrink into the proton or deuteron whilst forming a
>Neutrino-AntiNeutrino Pair by borrowing mass-energy from the nucleus and by
>expelling the neutrino form a Light Neutron or
>in the case of the deuteron, a neutron pair.

There is absolutely *no need* for and there is *almost no chance* for the
required neutrino creating weak  reaction due to the short reach of the
weak force.  The psedo neutron or pseudo di-neutron with binding (or
"shielding" or "ionizing", if those terms are appropriate to the situation)
energy approximately determined by the instantaneous force between the
electron and nucleus in collision is sufficient to create the tunneling
prospects of that hydrogen nucleus into another nearby nucleus.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 01:02:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29655;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:01:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:01:27 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530506b2aba65daaa6 [208.228.222.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:09:40 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Cc: <fstenger interlaced.net>
Resent-Message-ID: <"XsOxp1.0.HF7.dTVXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25441
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:09 AM 12/27/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>
>SPAMMING? WHY YOU WASAFRATS> :-)

No offense intended. That is my understanding of the original definition of
the word.

>
>I responded to your vortex-l message and sent a copy to vortexb, whereupon
>Robin responded.

As I understand it, the vortex list is supposed to work as a hierarchy.
The idea is to subscribe to the vortcore list, or vortcore and vortex-l
list, or all three lists.  Those subscribed to all the lists will see
multiple copies of any spam.


>Then to keep you informed due to your "busy schedule" with
>polaROIDS and iceyBMs

Actually, earlier I was referring to real ABM's - possibly being installed
in this neck of the woods at a not so distant date.


>I posted back on vortexb AND vortex-l, perfectly in
>compliance with both lists/topics. :-)

But not in compliance with the no-spam rule.

>
>If you are THAT BUSY I suggest you might try listening to the radio.  :-)

I would if I could get vortex news on it!  8^)  Maybe Bill B. should host
his own talk show?

Yes, I really should bail out for now.  Among other things, I'm busy
dumping my theorems and code for ultra fast factoring (also an amateur
effort) on my son, who is implementing them in C and/or Mathematica.  I'd
hate for years of my work to die with me.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 01:05:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA30861;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:04:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:04:29 -0800
Message-ID: <006001be3177$d4a672e0$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:02:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mvrgt2.0.4Y7.TWVXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25442
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: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers

Horace wrote:


>At 3:58 PM 12/26/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>Horace, your 2 Kilovolt "tunneling" calculations work for an
Electron-Proton
>>or Electron-Deuteron collisions, but don't do much for Proton-Proton or
>>Deuteron-Deuteron Tunneling. :-)
>
>The calculations I presented were not intended to relate to electron
>tunneling at all.  They were only intended to relate to minimum conditions
>for the electron to gain energy upon approaching the nucleus.  The
>conditions for ZPE pumping are fairly minimal.  I quote from my 1995 post
>outlining this: "Now: p=h/L, where p=mv so: mv=h/L,
>v*(9.11E-31kg)=(6.626E-34 joule*sec)/(0.32E-10 m), v=2.273E7m/sec.  Looking
>at energy, E=.5mv^2=(.5)(9.11E-31kg)(2.27E7)^2, E=2.353E-16joule/(1.602
>E-19 joule/eV)=1470 eV.  So a minimal energy electron to initiate the
>process should be about 1470 eV, quite a bit to get inside a lattice!  This
>can not be accomplished by temperature alone because 1eV=1.15E4 deg K,

This IS NOT SO, The Raman-Type "ANTISTOKES LINES" from electrons in a
crowded lattice can get up to Kev levels. IOW, the electrons are known to
attain these energies in a metal lattice. This is the backbone of condensed
matter Fusion. Or CF.

You can see this with low energy x-rays in thin metal films and the COMPTON
"SCATTERING/DOPPLER" EFFECTS.

 so
>the temperature would be 1470*1.16E4=17,000,000 deg K.  It would appear
>that, in the absence of a strong magnetic field, the main objective then to
>initiate the cold fusion effect is to get 2-3 keV electrons busy inside the
>lattice.  Cosmic rays readily can do this, as well as a lattice fractures.

So can stochastic thermal clustering of the free electrons in a metal, where
V = kq/R.

Ten years ago X-ray irradiation for CF effects was tried at Utah and the
Government labs with nil results.


>Even alpha
>emitters, disrupting lattice electrons, should work.
This sounds more reasonable.
>
(Don't forget there is a finite
>probability of tunneling at *any* radius.)

Sure, Horace. And Cows Routinely jump over the Moon. Force, F =
Z1*Z2*k*q^2/R^2  q IS CONSTANT and doesn't go away to fit TUNNELING
CONJECTURE!
SOMETHING is NEGATING q and it has to be a mechanism involving an electron
ie., if Z1 or Z2 goes to ZERO, Force goes to ZERO and FUSION HOT OR COLD can
occur.

Regards,   Frederick

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 01:27:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00335;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:27:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:27:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530508b2abac6314e7 [208.228.222.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:35:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Resent-Message-ID: <"b2xEp3.0.95.crVXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25443
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:02 AM 12/27/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>Ten years ago X-ray irradiation for CF effects was tried at Utah and the
>Government labs with nil results.

They were looking for the wrong products!  The right products to look for
are transmuted lattice atoms.


>
>
>>Even alpha
>>emitters, disrupting lattice electrons, should work.
>This sounds more reasonable.
>>
>(Don't forget there is a finite
>>probability of tunneling at *any* radius.)
>
>Sure, Horace. And Cows Routinely jump over the Moon. Force, F =
>Z1*Z2*k*q^2/R^2  q IS CONSTANT and doesn't go away to fit TUNNELING
>CONJECTURE!

Tunneling is not a conjecture.  Tunneling happens regularly and can be
modelled with great accuracy.  The coulomb barrier is instantaneosly
penetrated.  To achieve tunneling does not require having the full energy
of the barrier (such a reaction specifically is *not* tunneling.)
Tunneling is jumping between two points with similar potentials that are
less than the barrier peak potential. In fact, the nucleus waveform has
simultaneous existence on both sides of the coulommb barrier.  The
tunneling nucleus is "grabbed" by the strong force, making the tunneling
event one way, relocating the center of charge and the entire quantum
waveform in the process.

Looking at it from a string point of view, a highly stretched string can
extend into the nulceus carrying only a small percentage of the charge.  If
some great force in the nucleus can then make the string snap closed like a
rubber band, then the string might be collapsed into the nucleus.

>SOMETHING is NEGATING q and it has to be a mechanism involving an electron
>ie., if Z1 or Z2 goes to ZERO, Force goes to ZERO and FUSION HOT OR COLD can
>occur.

Yes, but it does not have to negate the electrostatic force at a very close
distance and does not have to negate the force very long.  It is not
necessary to create a genuine dineutron or neutron.  In fact, CF neutron
detectors are pretty darn quiet.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 02:17:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA06986;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:15:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:15:04 -0800
Message-ID: <008101be3181$b0dbf560$03441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 03:12:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"agp4F3.0.0j1.eYWXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25444
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers

Horace wrote:


>At 2:02 AM 12/27/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>Ten years ago X-ray irradiation for CF effects was tried at Utah and the
>>Government labs with nil results.
>
>They were looking for the wrong products!  The right products to look for
>are transmuted lattice atoms.

What you see is what you get.  :-)
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Even alpha
>>>emitters, disrupting lattice electrons, should work.
>>This sounds more reasonable.
>>>
>>(Don't forget there is a finite
>>>probability of tunneling at *any* radius.)
>>
>>Sure, Horace. And Cows Routinely jump over the Moon. Force, F =
>>Z1*Z2*k*q^2/R^2  q IS CONSTANT and doesn't go away to fit TUNNELING
>>CONJECTURE!
>
>Tunneling is not a conjecture.  Tunneling happens regularly and can be
>modeled with great accuracy.  The coulomb barrier is instantaneously
>penetrated.

If you say so, Horace, the Sun has a mass of 2E30 Kilograms and constantly
puts out 3.86E26 watts:

3.86E26/2E30 ~= 2E-4 watts/Kg if you figure
the output from the "core" at a temperature of
15 million deg K (~= 1200 ev) with pressure in the trillions of bars,and
most of the energy from the core-mass of 3.86E26 Kg then you are looking at
a watt/kg no matter what kind of mathematical acrobatics you want to use.

Or you can build an H-Bomb and get the  temperatures/pressures up to where
you rival a Supernova explosion and get O-U out of it.

I've seen millions of man-years and billions of dollars go into trying to
beat Nature's "Order",with NOTHING on the Horizon that will do so.

As an exercise it's free and entertaining, from a practical standpoint,
Forget It, and go harness that 12,000 Quads/day coming from the Sun. The
World Produces/Uses about 1.0 Quad/Day from Solar,fossil,nuclear,and
geothermal.   :-)

If my memory serves me right, you are also a Charter Member of THE ORDER OF
THE TORTOISE. :-)

Regards,   Frederick

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 04:47:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA19060;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 04:43:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 04:43:58 -0800
Message-ID: <36862835.5728 club-internet.fr>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:29:41 +0100
From: Jean-Pierre LENTIN <jplentin club-internet.fr>
Reply-To: jplentin club-internet.fr
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [fr]C-CLUB  (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Greetings
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"d9wnf2.0.if4.DkYXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25445
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi & merry Christmas & happy new year to all !

you may note my new email address 
(and delete the old one if you have me in an address book) :

jplentin club-internet.fr

I just moved 
from a noisy Paris apartment 
to a quiet beautiful country house. 
What a change ! 
This is in tune 
with my good resolutions for 1999 : 
play more piano
quit smoking
less TV work 
more writing
and
(coming September 1999 ?)
a French monthly magazine covering new science

let me tell you
it’s been a pleasure
and an inspiration
to read you all
day after day
and I look forward
to 1999
can’t wait to hear from you again !

Best wishes
Love to all


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 11:50:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11728;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:50:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:50:18 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2ac38a69e3b [208.228.222.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:58:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Coulomb Potentials and Barriers
Resent-Message-ID: <"EAxL1.0.At2.wzeXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25446
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 3:12 AM 12/27/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>3.86E26/2E30 ~= 2E-4 watts/Kg if you figure
>the output from the "core" at a temperature of
>15 million deg K (~= 1200 ev) with pressure in the trillions of bars,and
>most of the energy from the core-mass of 3.86E26 Kg then you are looking at
>a watt/kg no matter what kind of mathematical acrobatics you want to use.


That is an interesting idea.  I get about 1293 eV.  That is very close to
the 1470 eV, which corresponds to about 17,000,000 deg K, that I calculated
as a minimum energy to initiate ZPE pumping at a very low level inside the
Pd lattice.  A hotter star might produce a small amount of ZPE energy by
this hypothesis.  The 1470 eV was based upon an electron wavelength of 0.3
angstroms, though, but might have to actually be much smaller in the high
pressure plasma environment.  It does seem offhand that the plsma
environment might be too disruptive to produce the proposed ZPE pumping
effect.  A "trapped" intermediate wavelength electron, for example, would
not reamin trapped long enough to pump from the ZPE sea.  An enegetic
collision would transfer the needed energy before the ZPE pumping could
take place.  It takes a special combination of circumstances to pull off
the effect.

The other effect, momentary shielding of the hydrogen nucleus by a low
wavelength colliding electron, requres an initial wavelength that is
smaller by one or more orders of magnitude.  It might take a star with an
internal temperature of over 1.5 billion degrees.  Is there such an animal
about?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 19:13:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06737;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 19:12:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 19:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <36871260.38158348 sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:08:48 -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: Timing devices...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"czuBX.0.Bf1.RSlXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25447
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo:

What kind of device might be used to determine a signal's transit time,
or compare two transit times down to .1picosecond?

If this is considered off-topic, I'm sorry.
Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Dec 27 19:39:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA12968;
	Sun, 27 Dec 1998 19:38:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 19:38:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981227223740.00820960 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 22:37:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Timing devices...
In-Reply-To: <36871260.38158348 sunherald.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"noUFv1.0.TA3.nqlXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25448
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



At 09:08 PM 12/27/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>Vo:
>
>What kind of device might be used to determine a signal's transit time,
>or compare two transit times down to .1picosecond?
>
>If this is considered off-topic, I'm sorry.
>Kyle R. Mcallister


   Decades ago at MIT, I had the opportunity to study
lasers with Hermann Haus.  In ~1967,  we used mode-locking 
of helium-neon lasers to generate picosecond pulses.  

  There have been upgrades in pulse rate by changing 
pathlength, etc., and you an read his upgrades at
http://www.bell-labs.com/user/tkw/cd/ieeecd_haus_edit.html
which involve pulses now of a few femtoseconds.

  Other solid state info on modelocking with lots
of references is here
http://sol.physik.tu-berlin.de/htm_ms/refs.htm

  That should do it.   ;-)X
   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 04:20:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA12780;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:19:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:19:48 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be325c$43da1ba0$07441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 05:18:10 -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: <"NGoRF.0.c73.aTtXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25449
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Electron bombardment of a Low Z material such as Beryllium, Boron, or Carbon
at 1.5 to 5 Kev
might get the electrons close enough to the
nucleus to draw energy from it and
shrink, (dRe = 137*2.304E-28/dEe) with concurrent expansion of the quarks in
the nucleus:

dRq = 137*2.304E-28/dEq

If ZPE "Pumping" goes as theorized, the
quarks will recover their "lost energy" by
being replenished by the Quantum Mechanical Property of the Vacuum as the
electrons dump
their added energy to the local environment.

A "coaxial" arrangement of the emitting filament (cathode) with the low Z
tubular anode
at ground potential should facilitate easy
calorimetry.

        ____________________________

      ---------------------------------
        ____________________________

Can you do this when you're not "too busy", Horace?   :-)

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 06:48:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10495;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 06:47:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 06:47:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981228084801.0085a170 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:48:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Timing devices...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981227223740.00820960 world.std.com>
References: <36871260.38158348 sunherald.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Me2UV.0.uZ2.qdvXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25450
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:08 PM 12/27/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

>What kind of device might be used to determine a signal's transit time,
>or compare two transit times down to .1picosecond?

At 10:37 PM 12/27/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>....we used mode-locking 
>of helium-neon lasers to generate picosecond pulses.  

I'm interested in this problem too.  It is not immediately obvious to me
how being able to generate very short pulses helps actually make the timing
measurement.  Don't we still need a timing device with sub-picosecond
resolution?...not to mention the problem of getting the information to the
timing device.  


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

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 07:07:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA16110;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 07:06:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 07:06:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981228100521.0082be20 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:05:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Timing devices...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981228084801.0085a170 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981227223740.00820960 world.std.com>
 <36871260.38158348 sunherald.infi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-KAzb2.0.Xx3.TvvXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25451
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>At 09:08 PM 12/27/98 -0800, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>>What kind of device might be used to determine a signal's transit time,
>>or compare two transit times down to .1picosecond?
>
>At 10:37 PM 12/27/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>>....we used mode-locking 
>>of helium-neon lasers to generate picosecond pulses.  
>
At 08:48 AM 12/28/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>I'm interested in this problem too.  It is not immediately obvious to me
>how being able to generate very short pulses helps actually make the timing
>measurement.  Don't we still need a timing device with sub-picosecond
>resolution?...not to mention the problem of getting the information to the
>timing device.  


   In one method, the pulse emissions are the timing mechanism.  

   The difficulty is probably on the order of achieving successful 
cold fusion with an active nickel system.     ;-)X

     Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 10:31:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18888;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:29:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:29:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199812281828.NAA21530 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Conflat gaskets
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:31:45 -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: <"jHHY_3.0.-c4.CuyXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25452
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex,

We are working on the design of a cell that will incorporate a Conflat
gasket.  I would appreciate if anyone who has direct experience in sealing
hydrogen with such seals and who knows how the gasket seats are supposed to
be designed would reply.  

We know that the seats have work hardened knife edges, sloping away from
the confined area.  I need clear specifications to give to a machinist.  I
tried contacting Varian with little success so far.


Ed Wall

New Energy Research Laboratory
Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816

voice: (603) 226-4822
fax: (603) 224-5975

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 10:43:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24952;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:42:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:42:46 -0800
From: Puthoff aol.com
Message-ID: <5708ce7d.3687cf67 aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:35:19 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"UMNH31.0.o56.c4zXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25453
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fred, why don't you build this?  Get a demo going and we'll take it from
there!  :-)
Seriously!

Hal

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 11:41:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17872;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:40:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:40:42 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3687D18C.4E06 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:44:28 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
References: <199812281828.NAA21530 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nhFGD2.0._M4.vwzXs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25454
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 28, 1998

Ed,

Try <http://www.vacgen.com/vacgen/catalogue/section01/page01_20htm>

They sell all type of gaskets, including conflat gaskets.

It recommends use of copper gaskets for UHV uses, silver plated ones for
non exposure to copper oxides, and viton gaskets for high vacuum.

They may supply the information you need.

I hope you are using a Molecular Sieve with the pump you will be using.
What kind of vacuum gauge will be used?

-ak-

> We are working on the design of a cell that will incorporate a Conflat
> gasket. I would appreciate if anyone who has direct experience in >sealing hydrogen with such seals and who knows how the gasket seats are >supposed to be designed would reply.
> 
> We know that the seats have work hardened knife edges, sloping away >from the confined area.  I need clear specifications to give to a >machinist.  I tried contacting Varian with little success so far.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 12:20:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04316;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:19:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:19:04 -0800
Message-Id: <199812282017.PAA12829 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:21:55 -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: <"_Gef21.0.M31.tU-Xs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25455
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Akira Kawasaki wrote:

> It recommends use of copper gaskets for UHV uses, silver plated ones for
> non exposure to copper oxides, and viton gaskets for high vacuum.
> 
> They may supply the information you need.
> 
> I hope you are using a Molecular Sieve with the pump you will be using.
> What kind of vacuum gauge will be used?
> 

Although these are vacuum seals, vacuum plays a minor part in the
experiment.  The cell is pressurized with protium or deuterium.  We have no
plan for a Molecular Sieve or vacuum gauge.  Our pump makes a distinctive
noise when it reaches 500 microns.  This is more vacuum than Case uses.

These seals are reportedly tested to 150,000 psi and 500C, when used with a
properly designed gasket seat.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 12:35:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09294;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:31:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:31:52 -0800
Message-ID: <000a01be32a1$0299a620$6d441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:30:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"C-E_k1.0.8H2.ug-Xs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25456
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Puthoff aol.com <Puthoff@aol.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump

Hal wrote:


>Fred, why don't you build this?  Get a demo going and we'll take it from
>there!  :-)
>Seriously!

Too easy for someone with an internally coated(Boron or Beryllium-plated)
copper tube with an annular water jacket,and an axial Tungsten filament, if
you have the shop facilities and a good vacuum pump, 0 to 5 kv (100
ma.)power supply. and a battery pack that can be floated at 5 kv for the
filament.

No reason for it to be more than 3-5 cm long by about 1.5 cm diameter.

Easier to build it based on in-house equipment
rather than the other way around, Seriously. :-)

I'm completely traumatized just getting a twin engine electric
radio-controlled trainer airplane back in the air for my Grandson. I think a
horse ate one of the propellers after it crashed into a woven-wire fence.
:-(

Regards,  Frederick
>
>Hal
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 15:18:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03987;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:11:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:11:28 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <368802CC.5925 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:14:36 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
References: <199812282017.PAA12829 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"o66JX.0.1-.V01Ys" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25457
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 28, 1998

Ed Wall wrote:

> We have no plan for a Molecular Sieve ---

In researching/shopping for a vacuum pump system, I have learned that a
'dry', non petroleum based pump was desirable in creating the vacuum in
a Case type cell operation. And 'dry' pumps are expensive! In lieu of a
dry pump, an operating mechanical oil bath vacuum pump must have a
Molecular Sieve installed to stop any possibility of oil molecules
entering the cells. It seems that in vacuum 'pumping', remaining
molecules tend to wander into the pump as much as it wanders out of the
pump. And this can be minimized by the Molecular Seive 'trap'. In Russ
George's replication effort, a liquid nitrogen bath was used to trap the
possible contamination sources. Petroleum contamination is fatal to the
experiment.
  
>-- or vacuum gauge.  Our pump makes a distinctive
> noise when it reaches 500 microns.  

Well. I don't know about 'noises' being a sure fire indication of having
reached 500 microns (is that 5x10-4 torr?).

>This is more vacuum than Case uses.

I understand his vacuum system is good to 1x10-3 torr. I wonder what his
whole vacuum setup is.

> These seals are reportedly tested to 150,000 psi and 500C, when used >with a properly designed gasket seat.

The copper gasket (illustrated at the web site) digs into the knife edge
ring ridge on the conflat and really makes a solid seal when bolted
together. It should hold up to your specs, vac or heat and pressure. 

-ak-

ps: Thanks for the a vacuum website

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 15:29:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA10637;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:28:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:28:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981228172648.009253bc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 17:26:48 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
In-Reply-To: <199812281828.NAA21530 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"a7Tf11.0.2c2.HG1Ys" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25458
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 13:31 12/28/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:
>Vortex,
>
>We are working on the design of a cell that will incorporate a Conflat
>gasket.  I would appreciate if anyone who has direct experience in sealing
>hydrogen with such seals and who knows how the gasket seats are supposed to
>be designed would reply.  

Ed, I've used these things a lot....with hydrogen.  They're great....I've
never had a leak in one.  I always purchase ready-made flanges and then
machine them as needed.  They're pretty cheap. For example, a 2-3/4"
Conflat blank flange is $14 from Duniway Stockroom www.duniway.com.  That
way you get the whole seal geometry and bolt pattern already done and then
you can cut whatever kind of hole(s) you want in the center part of the
flange.

Take a look at the way I did my Case experiment at:

http://www.eden.com/~little/case/setup.html

I used a 2-3/4" CONFLAT nipple (a standard item) for the chamber and just
closed it with two of the abovementioned flanges which were modified to
accept the TC wells and the vac port.

To get closer to Case's geometry you'd want to go to maybe 6" CONFLAT.  It
gets more expensive FAST as you go up in size (e.g. a 6" blank is $65).

Holler if you want any help using CONFLAT.  Yes, you have to use all the
bolts or the seal won't make up properly.  On a 6" flange, there are 16
bolts!  Yes, you have to use a new Cu gasket each time you remake the joint.

Aki wrote:

>Petroleum contamination is fatal to the
>experiment.

I don't know about that, Aki.  Case told me that he just used an ordinary
oil-filled roughing pump.  I used a fancy system with molecular sieve, etc.
and didn't see excess heat....maybe petroleum contamination is VITAL to the
experiment.



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 Dec 28 15:39:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13776;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:32:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:32:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <368807D1.AE80D4E7 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:36:02 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: error on address Re: Conflat gaskets
References: <199812281828.NAA21530 mercury.mv.net> <3687D18C.4E06@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------061B21FC6A0E2C22E4455271"
Resent-Message-ID: <"P-FOI3.0.AN3.XK1Ys" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25459
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


--------------061B21FC6A0E2C22E4455271
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

December 28, 1998

left out a dot on the vacgen address!

> Try again: <http://www.vacgen.com/vacgen/catalogue/section01/page01_20.htm>

-ak-

--------------061B21FC6A0E2C22E4455271
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
December 28, 1998

<P>left out a dot on the vacgen address!
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Try again: &lt;<A HREF="http://www.vacgen.com/vacgen/catalogue/section01/page01_20htm">http://www.vacgen.com/vacgen/catalogue/section01/page01_20.htm</A>></BLOCKQUOTE>
-ak-</HTML>

--------------061B21FC6A0E2C22E4455271--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Dec 28 16:09:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27887;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:03:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:03:08 -0800
Message-ID: <36880F02.90BB4548 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:06:42 -0800
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
References: <3.0.1.32.19981228172648.009253bc mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WVvil2.0.Up6.ym1Ys" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25460
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 28, 1998

Scott says,

I said:

> I don't know about that, Aki.  Case told me that he just used an ordinary
> oil-filled roughing pump.  I used a fancy system with molecular sieve, etc.
> and didn't see excess heat....maybe petroleum contamination is VITAL to the
> experiment.

I don't know that even a Molecular Sieve is going to trap all the oil moleules'
back flow either.

Well contrast that with Russ George'a indication of helium buildup beyond
background with his setup. He did not measure excess heat although it was there.
His target was helium. And he used a rigorous liquid nitrogen vacuum trap
system.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 04:13:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA27698;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 04:12:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 04:12:38 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be3324$6dec6240$92441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pumping
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:11:03 -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: <"QHxpO3.0.hm6.rSCYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25461
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

It is assumed that electron bombardment (1.0 to 5.0 Kev) of low Z metals
might show ZPE pumping, with Beryllium as the first choice.

However, if Bremsstrahlung expected in higher Z
metals such as Aluminum, Magnesium, or Nickel is not a major factor,
standard off-the-shelf
vacuum tubes could be used for calorimetry experiments.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 05:28:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA06392;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:25:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:25:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199812291324.IAA09832 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:28:39 -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: <"PkHH32.0.kZ1.aXDYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25462
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott referring to Conflat gaskets:

> Ed, I've used these things a lot....with hydrogen.  

Thanks.  
> 
> Aki wrote:
> 
> >Petroleum contamination is fatal to the
> >experiment.
> 
Scott:

> I don't know about that, Aki.  Case told me that he just used an ordinary
> oil-filled roughing pump.  I used a fancy system with molecular sieve,
etc.
> and didn't see excess heat....maybe petroleum contamination is VITAL to
the
> experiment.
> 
Case did express some misgivings about the possibility of oil contamination
from the pump to me.  The pump he used while performing a successful demo
in Bow (which I did not see) was a Lammert 45 psi.

While we do not have a molecular sieve, we do have an input filter, which
the folks at Cole-Parmer said would stop the oil.

Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 05:53:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA12496;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:50:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:50:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199812291349.IAA14463 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:33:06 -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: <"Hkb-2.0.A33.3vDYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25463
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:
  
> >-- or vacuum gauge.  Our pump makes a distinctive
> > noise when it reaches 500 microns.  
>
Akira:
 
> Well. I don't know about 'noises' being a sure fire indication of having
> reached 500 microns (is that 5x10-4 torr?).
> 
The pump's handbook states that the noise occurs after maximum vacuum has
been reached and it is pretty distinctive.  I think it sounds like an
engine ping.  When I had a slight leak, it failed to do it.

Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 06:56:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA30140;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:55:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:55:34 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229085501.00922930 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:55:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
In-Reply-To: <199812291324.IAA09832 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"f32et3.0.nM7.crEYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25464
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:28 12/29/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:

>While we do not have a molecular sieve, we do have an input filter, which
>the folks at Cole-Parmer said would stop the oil.

A molecular sieve IS an input filter.  As far as I can tell, it's just a
metal can full of kitty litter (synthetic zeolite, they claim).   They're
relatively  cheap.  I got ours from MDC (http://www.mdc-vacuum.com) for $235.

BTW, I was thinking about the cost of CONFLAT flanges.  $65 for a 6" blank
is a real bargain.  If you took detailed dwgs of the flange to a machine
shop and said, "Make me one of these".  I'll bet you couldn't walk away
with it for less than ~$200.



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 Dec 29 06:58:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA31527;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:58:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:58:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229085753.00922628 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:57:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
In-Reply-To: <199812291349.IAA14463 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"u2fD23.0.Xi7.7uEYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25465
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:33 12/29/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:

>The pump's handbook states that the noise occurs after maximum vacuum has
>been reached and it is pretty distinctive.  I think it sounds like an
>engine ping.  When I had a slight leak, it failed to do it.

The sound IS distinctive.  "Engine ping" is close.  I think of bare feet
slapping on a concrete floor....



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 Dec 29 07:09:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA01905;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:06:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:06:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229090543.00717a08 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:05:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: mean free path in H2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zUI-P.0.fT.j_EYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25466
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Seeking independent check of my calcs:

At what pressure is the mean free path of H2 molecules in H2 gas about 1 cm?

Thanks



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 Dec 29 07:31:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA09014;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:29:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:29:32 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <3688E829.1B46 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:33:13 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
References: <1998122943115319169 ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mxYcC3.0.mC2.SLFYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25467
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 29, 1998
 
> Scott says,

> I said:
Oops! The words were not edited out.
 
> I don't know about that, Aki.  Case told me that he just used an 
> ordinary oil-filled roughing pump.  

I'd like to see detailed specs on his vacuum system including the
plumbing.

What I suggested to Ed was the use of a "Foreline Trap" which is similar
in use of an adsorption trap material to the molecular sieve you use.

>I used a fancy system with molecular sieve,
> etc. and didn't see excess heat....maybe petroleum contamination is >VITAL to the experiment.

I think you jest. :)

You mentioned on another conversation that Tom Claytor uses a "dry" pump
system. Same thing I had in mind except for the cost. And I do not know
that a molecular sieve makes everything oil-free either.

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 08:36:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06043;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:35:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:35:27 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be3349$22a7bd00$51441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: mean free path in H2
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:33:55 -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: <"Q7p6v1.0.IU1.EJGYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25468
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 8:06 AM
Subject: mean free path in H2

Scott wrote:


>Seeking independent check of my calcs:
>
>At what pressure is the mean free path of H2 molecules in H2 gas about 1
cm?

CRC says 8.81 cm at 1.0E-3 mm Hg (1 micron) thus 1.0E-3/8.81, right?? (H2
dia 2.4 angstrom)
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>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 Dec 29 09:23:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26723;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:21:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:21:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199812291720.MAA26897 mercury.mv.net>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:10:57 -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: <"Zo5x7.0.TX6.q-GYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25469
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott wrote:
 
> Take a look at the way I did my Case experiment at:
> 
> http://www.eden.com/~little/case/setup.html
> 
I found some commercially available NPT threaded thermowells, but your
drawing shows really skinny ones.  What are those?

Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 10:44:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01882;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:42:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:42:38 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229124217.00a2481c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:42:17 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: mean free path in H2
In-Reply-To: <000c01be3349$22a7bd00$51441d26 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"E00of3.0.KT.TAIYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25471
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:33 12/29/98 -0700, Frederick J Sparber wrote:

>CRC says 8.81 cm at 1.0E-3 mm Hg (1 micron)

Thanks.  That checks well.

>thus 1.0E-3/8.81, right??

wrong direction, Fred.  a 1 cm free path will occur at a HIGHER
pressure....about 10 millitorr, I believe.



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 Dec 29 10:47:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00679;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:40:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:40:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229123952.00a2481c mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:39:52 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
In-Reply-To: <199812291720.MAA26897 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XVgnB.0.XA.H8IYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25470
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:10 12/29/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:

>I found some commercially available NPT threaded thermowells, but your
>drawing shows really skinny ones.  What are those?

Homemade using 0.062" OD SS304 hypodermic tubing from Small Parts.  I
inserted K thermocouple wire thru the tubing until the bared and twisted
the ends just protruded.  Using a TIG welding torch, I fused the TC wires
and the end of the SS tubing together making a seal and a grounded TC
junction at the same time.  I then inserted this probe thru a clearance
hole in the CONFLAT flange and soft-soldered it in place.

Omega sells similar factory-made probes (down to an amazing 0.040"
diameter) and they can provide them with ungrounded TC junctions, which I
recommend (I had noise problems with my grounded junctions).  They also
sell a compression fitting that makes an all-metal seal to their probes.
You can weld the compression fitting into a drilled hole in your CONFLAT
flange to obtain an all-metal system suitable for Case's operating
temperature range.

FAX me a quick picture of what you're trying to build, Ed.  I'd be glad to
make more detailed suggestions.



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 Dec 29 11:40:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25683;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:38:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:38:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981229144017.01538db0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:40:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
In-Reply-To: <199812291324.IAA09832 mercury.mv.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"20OeG2.0.9H6.f-IYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25472
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:28 AM 12/29/98 -0500, Ed Wall wrote:
>While we do not have a molecular sieve, we do have an input filter, which
>the folks at Cole-Parmer said would stop the oil.
 
  In photolithography, oil contamination during processing can ruin
printing plates.  But we quite successfully used oil filled pumps with
cotton "waste" filters in the line.  The filters were in a glass bell jar
so you could see the contamination creaping upward and replace the filter
material when necessary.  Actually most places replaced them every month
whether they needed it or not.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 12:01:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00991;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:59:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:59:17 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:58:55 +0000 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
In-Reply-To: <01be2eb1$b8686110$0c6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981229195313.27926A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"HQ-qu1.0.NF.KIJYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25473
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George,

Sorry for the delay in replying. Am away from terminals. Currently at
Global Cafe in London. Will observe your suggestion.

Any suggestions on how to get to higher levels on the zen of Bifilar
coils? Just how are these things going to work? We have to avoid
electrical work.

Probably be next week before I can respond. I will try the experiment.
When you unshort the secondary, how is it possible for the current to drop
to zero. I made a mistake in the derivation? These are first order de's,
they will have one characteristic solution, one exponential term. What you
describe are two solutions: a drop down to zero (instanteous?) then a expo
ramp up.

I am puzzled, but nature is the mediator and arbitar.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 15:37:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03803;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:32:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:32:54 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:40:01 -0500
Message-ID: <01be3384$8d82c5d0$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: <"qIez02.0.Hx.bQMYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25474
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Remi wrote:


>Any suggestions on how to get to higher levels on the zen of Bifilar
>coils? Just how are these things going to work? We have to avoid
>electrical work.
>
I have not found any way to avoid electrical work in building 
a magnetic field in an inductor. My suggestion is to find some way to
change the magnetic properties so that the work is different on
the input and output cycles. In general, switched conductive shields 
do not seem to be capable of providing OU results.
-
>I will try the experiment.
>When you unshort the secondary, how is it possible for the current to drop
>to zero. I made a mistake in the derivation? These are first order de's,
>they will have one characteristic solution, one exponential term. What you
>describe are two solutions: a drop down to zero (instanteous?) then a expo
>ramp up.
-
The only mistake is a conceptual one, the two coils are closely coupled
by the magnetic flux and cannot be treated separately. The combined current
was zero before S2 was opened and remains zero afterward. The net magnetic flux
was also zero before and after S2 is opened. The differential equation relates
electrical response to changes in magnetic flux. Since the coils
share a common flux, use one differential equation for both coils.

George
-
George Holz  - george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 15:39:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06124;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:38:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:38:16 -0800
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981229234446.011dc520 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, 29 Dec 1998 18:44:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Conflat gaskets
Resent-Message-ID: <"h_OqP1.0.bV1.dVMYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25475
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi;


At 06:33 AM 12/29/98 -0800, you wrote:
>December 29, 1998
(snip)
>>I used a fancy system with molecular sieve,
>> etc. and didn't see excess heat....maybe petroleum contamination is
>VITAL to the experiment.
>
>I think you jest. :)

One configuration of our asymmetrical electrode experiments 10 years ago
used teflon tape insulation. We input a power level which melted the teflon.
The vapor interacted with the EM fields of the electrode pair within the
belljar. The multitude of various particles made a variety of resonant
frequencies available. This produced spectacular plasma displays of
exquisite complexity and detail.

>You mentioned on another conversation that Tom Claytor uses a "dry" pump
>system. Same thing I had in mind except for the cost. And I do not know
>that a molecular sieve makes everything oil-free either.

The proper valving, timing, and vacuum level parameters that good lab
technique requires is probably a factor. I've seen electrostatic vacuum pump
systems. I might almost suggest that such a principal would help prevent oil
droplet contamination.

Regards;
Dennis




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


Concentric Tori
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/GoldCTori_A.JPG


Circle Of Fire - Dreamland - VR Avatars! Great Fun!
http://www.artbellchatclub.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 17:16:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20512;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:15:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:15:06 -0800
Message-ID: <19981230011600.19482.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:16:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: mean free path in H2
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"b_0Bk1.0.Q05.PwNYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25476
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

> Seeking independent check of my calcs:
> 
> At what pressure is the mean free path of H2 molecules in H2 gas
about 1 cm?

I worked it out quickly and got 1 cm mean free path at about 18
micro-bar at room temperature. This is about 0.014 torr. 

It looks like this is close to Fred Sparber's number.
==
Michael J. Schaffer


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Dec 29 20:25:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24551;
	Tue, 29 Dec 1998 20:25:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 20:25:01 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b2af55cfcb50 [12.21.208.86]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:33:02 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Resent-Message-ID: <"CQ2101.0.X_5.SiQYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25477
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:18 AM 12/28/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>Electron bombardment of a Low Z material such as Beryllium, Boron, or Carbon
>at 1.5 to 5 Kev
>might get the electrons close enough to the
>nucleus to draw energy from it and
>shrink, (dRe = 137*2.304E-28/dEe) with concurrent expansion of the quarks in
>the nucleus:
>
>dRq = 137*2.304E-28/dEq
[snip]
>Can you do this when you're not "too busy", Horace?   :-)


I think it has already been done with some success.  BLP is one example,
but I assume they haven't figured out why their experiments actually work
yet.  8^)  I view Vince's experiments as looking like a very successful
example along this line, considering the amount of energy being radiated by
his tube.  I considered his experiment as being evidence for my own prior
ZPE pumping notions, not BLP's, but that just shows you what an egomaniacal
victim of wishful thinking I am.   8^)  No matter what the actual cause, I
think Vince's experiment looks very promising.  I think Na or K must work
just fine as the low Z material.

I think it is especially important to use a metal atom for the electron
target, as opposed to an oxidant, and to avoid the inclusioon of oxidants,
to avoid electrode deterioration.

I also think the 3 body interaction may be the most important. In other
words, a momentarily bound colliding low wavelength e-p pair that then
collides with a Na atom would be far more likely to radiate significantly
that just the e-p pair interacting alone.  The radiating of the electron
while down in the coulomb well is the key element to creating the ZPE
pumping situation, IMHO.

I do wonder if there are any high voltage Na lamps commercially available.
That might be an easy place to start looking at a "hydrogen free" approach,
to see if the hydrogen plays a key role in the process.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 03:32:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA18711;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:31:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:31:18 -0800
Message-ID: <000601be33e7$d0e6c840$0e441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:29:03 -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: <"QSzvQ1.0.Da4.6yWYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25478
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: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pumping

Horace wrote:


>At 5:18 AM 12/28/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>>To: Vortex
>>
>>Electron bombardment of a Low Z material such as Beryllium, Boron, or
Carbon
>>at 1.5 to 5 Kev
>>might get the electrons close enough to the
>>nucleus to draw energy from it and
>>shrink, (dRe = 137*2.304E-28/dEe) with concurrent expansion of the quarks
in
>>the nucleus:
>>
>>dRq = 137*2.304E-28/dEq
>[snip]
>
>I think Na or K must work
>just fine as the low Z material.

If it is simply a matter of energy exchange between unlike charges, I agree.
IOW. Na+ or K+
acting like a large H+ or D+ may be all that is required.

The Ionic Radius/Field Concentration may be the
key to transfering energy to the electron during a Collision/Interaaction.
>
>I do wonder if there are any high voltage Na lamps commercially available.

About the only place that a "high voltage" can be attained in a gas
discharge is in the a low current-low pressure cathode fall region of
an electrical discharge,such as in the setup that Vince was using. :-)

>That might be an easy place to start looking at a "hydrogen free" approach,
>to see if the hydrogen plays a key role in the process.

Using "Electron Tubes" with variation of electrode materials would be a
"hydrogen free"
approch to find out. This gives one a wide range of choices, ranging from
modified x-ray
tubes, to high voltage diodes, etc.

I think most "off-the-shelf" Electron Tubes use mostly nickel.

Regards, Frederick
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 04:54:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA30595;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:53:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:53:53 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be33f3$5b06e2c0$77441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pumping
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:52:18 -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: <"KHpV31.0.zT7.X9YYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25479
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Something to ponder is a possible connection between the extraordinary high
yield of Secondary Emission electrons from insulators
and ZPE Pumping.

The secondary yield from MgO crystals is about 16 Secondaries/Primary at
primary energies from
600 to 2,000 ev peaking at 24 at 1400 ev then dropping to 12 at about 3600
ev.

The calculated penetration depth is around 200 angstroms, and the secondary
energies range from about 10 ev up to the primary electron energy.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 05:28:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA01939;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:27:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:27:24 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:27:05 +0000 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
In-Reply-To: <01be3384$8d82c5d0$0c6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981230132243.3832A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"1W6QP3.0.DU.yeYYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25480
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George,

I see what you say about the net current being zero. I think you're right
but I will try to think around it.

I did use one de to describe both coils in that I described the total
flux. Intuition, for what that's worth is telling me I need some kind of
non-linearity - an aircore would be nice, that would prove zpe directly.

Back to the drawing board then the breadboard!

(I'm at an internet cafe and it costs a fortune. I don't want to see my
workplace *at all* during the Christmas break. Get that Dilbert feeling
outta my system!!. Till probably next week. Off to the Medway valley for a
cycle and hopefully some inspiration!!)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 06:12:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12071;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 06:11:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 06:11:58 -0800
Posted-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:11:07 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <368A1E94.A9004DAF verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:37:40 +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: Vacuum amplification of the high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (eprint:hep-th/9812233)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"j1cVR2.0.Xy2.jIZYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25481
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

It should be interesting, if one able to follow the heavy math. I encountered violation of CE in. Available from LANL online archive.

Happy 1999 to everybody.

hamdi ucar



High Energy Physics - Theory, abstract
hep-th/9812233

From: "Grigorii A. Vilkovisky" <vilkov sci.lebedev.ru>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:07:49 GMT   (43kb)

Vacuum amplification of the high-frequency electromagnetic
radiation

Authors: G. A. Vilkovisky (Lebedev Institute)

  When an electrically charged source is capable of both 
  emitting the electromagnetic waves and creating charged
  particles from the vacuum, its radiation gets so much
  amplified that only the backreaction of the vacuum makes
  it finite. The released energy and charge are calculated
  in the high-frequency approximation. The technique of
  expectation values is advanced and employed.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 11:24:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17602;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:22:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:22:25 -0800
From: "R. Wormus" <protech frii.com>
Reply-To: rwormus lock-load.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:18:12 -0600
Message-ID: <yam7668.607.137635592 mail.frii.com>
In-Reply-To: <368A1E94.A9004DAF verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: YAM 2.0Preview6 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck - http://www.yam.ch
Organization: LOCK+LOAD <R. Wormus>
Subject: Re: Interesting Physics Site
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y8JjE2.0.uI4.nrdYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25482
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Votexians,
Trust that all had a good Christmas and are looking forward to an
interesting Happy New Year.

I came across an interesting site at:

    http://www.web.uvic.ca/~gbaron/index.html

Here is an overview:


  o Einstein's time-symmetric Relativity is a simplification of a
time-asymmetric Relativity.  The time-symmetric Relativity, which is useful
for limited purposes, is misleading when applied to the entire universe. 
  
o The cosmological redshift is a consequence of a gradual and continuous
increase in the rate of time (with respect to the propagation of the
observer along his/her world-line) during the observable past. 
  
 Gravitation is instantaneous, and its magnitude is inversely proportional
to the squared modulus of the "distance" in space-time.  The gravitational
simultaneity, which is essentially different from the familiar (electric)
simultaneity, is determined such that the structure of the cosmos is
maintained. 
  
o Time is three-dimensional. There exists an unobservable complementary
sub-universe where the three-dimensional time is stationary and observable
and space flows continuously. Space-time singularities never occur. The
measure which never fails to prevent this state is the transformation of
physical matter into its complementary form. The physical matter which has
been transformed in the unobservable sub-universe appears in the observable
sub-universe as cosmic rays. 
  
 The physical information on quantum states is coded in time-vector fields.
These fields are known as wave functions. 

 interaction and electric interaction.  At the atomic level and downwards,
gravitation and electricity operate in a special mode- the "quantum mode".


Now if Fred can just explain it to me:)

Ron

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 16:07:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07621;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:06:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:06:17 -0800
From: rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Interesting Physics Site
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:06:08 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <368abf7d.214872379 24.192.1.20>
References: <yam7668.607.137635592 mail.frii.com>
In-Reply-To: <yam7668.607.137635592 mail.frii.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YPwwX.0._s1.u_hYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25483
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:18:12 -0600, R. Wormus wrote:

>Votexians,
>Trust that all had a good Christmas and are looking forward to an
>interesting Happy New Year.
>
>I came across an interesting site at:
>
>    http://www.web.uvic.ca/~gbaron/index.html
>
[snip]
I found this at:

http://web.uvic.ca/~gbaron/index.html , not the address specified
above (note the absence of "www" ).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa vic.bigpond.net.au>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 17:17:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12836;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:16:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:16:54 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981230193605.01530610 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 19:36:05 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b2af55cfcb50 [12.21.208.86]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zrhyP3.0.Q83.52jYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25484
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:33 PM 12/29/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>I do wonder if there are any high voltage Na lamps commercially available.
>That might be an easy place to start looking at a "hydrogen free" approach,
>to see if the hydrogen plays a key role in the process.
 
   1) Go to a nearby city, or even some large towns.

   2) Wait until dark.

   3) Look at peoples faces under the streetlight.  If they have a
"ghoulish" greenish cast, the streetlight is a sodium vapor lamp.

   4) Otherwise go to the next block and try again.

   Other popular choices include Mercury vapor which is bluish, Lucalux
which is pinkish, various metal halide lamps, and even fluorescent lamps.
Incandescents have mostly been replaced, since the power cost was too high
and bulb life too short.  You may however see quartz halogen lamps used to
illuminate buildings.  These are incandescent and are used because they
don't cause objections from people working behind those windows. ;-)

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 17:51:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29424;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:50:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:50:12 -0800
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Wanted: Old dead tubes (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981230204159.16467J-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"m-Dhm.0.cB7.JXjYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25485
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:39:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Wanted: Old dead tubes



	Dear Folks,

	I am looking to see if any of you or your friends have any old 
dead ... or not dead but used .... high power control tubes such as 
thyratrons, ignatrons, rectifiers of the mercury gas type.   I am going 
to open them up are examine damage.  The project is to investigate damage 
and failure in such power-mercury-gas [or vacuum] tubes.   I can use 
working tubes.... but not new tubes.  Mercury arc tubes used for lighting 
are OK too .... ones that are exposed to stress... the more stress the 
better, such as short arc high current tubes.

	I will share results with the group if anyone is interested.

	Thanks in advance for your vluable scrounging,

	John "junk ain't REALLY junk"  Herman Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 21:55:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04022;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:55:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:55:02 -0800
Message-ID: <000801be3481$ff72ed20$63441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Sputter Deposition of Thin Films (http://www.sandia.gov/materials/sciences/Capa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 22:53:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE3447.3C7D0060"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"EyPTf1.0.m-.s6nYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25486
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE3447.3C7D0060
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Spin-off technology of FAST IONS in an electrical discharge Cathode Fall
Region.

http://www.sandia.gov/materials/sciences/Capabilities/Sputtering/Sputtering.
html

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE3447.3C7D0060
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Sputter Deposition of Thin Films.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Sputter Deposition of Thin Films.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.sandia.gov/materials/sciences/Capabilities/Sputtering/Sp=
uttering.html
Modified=3D20895F818134BE01FD

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE3447.3C7D0060--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 23:00:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21491;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:00:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:00:00 -0800
Message-ID: <000d01be348b$1251c5c0$63441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:58:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"EWBOs3.0.iF5.l3oYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25487
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For your "Hydrogenless" Na Discharge, Horace.

I spent a few hours in 1963-65 working on Ion Plating, Ion Deposition, and
Sputtering Deposition.

You can get Na or K Ions up to several Kev if you adjust the Pressure and
Current of the metal vapor. If you do it right you can make the Cathode Fall
distance meters in length. A bit messy with Na or K though.  :-)

I used 18" dia bell jars about 36" tall, with the cathode/substrate at the
top. The anode was
a tungsten or moly "boat" heated with a high current power supply. Since the
molten metals didn't have the necessary vapor pressure, Argon was used as a
"pilot" gas to get things going.

As ancillary R&D, I built a 60 kev ion accelerator that had an electron beam
heated
crucible with a 0-150 ev electron bombardment ionizer that could ionize the
metal vapor as it came out of the refractory metal crucible so that it could
be accelerated up to 60 kev, then a turn a 90 degree bend using
electrostatic optics to separate the un-ionized atoms.

Then the ions could be literally deposited (implanted in a substrate)in
about any pattern and quantity you could think of, with electrostatic (X-Y)
deflection plates.

This WAS NOT Garage R&D!

Based on this, I think throwing Kev Electrons
at high-melting low Z materials (Be, B, C and other) is orders of magnitude
simpler.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Dec 30 23:14:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA26504;
	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:12:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:12:52 -0800
Message-ID: <19981231071352.13383.rocketmail send103.yahoomail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:13:52 -0800 (PST)
From: ron kita <tekcorman yahoo.com>
Subject: Sci. American/Cosmo Antigravity
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"kLOZw3.0._T6.qFoYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25488
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In the January 1999 issue of Sci. American there
is a great article on "Cosmological Antigravity".
Slowly the term "antigravity" is becoming "washed"..
as opposed to "unwashed".
Cheers,
Ron Kita
antigravitics_R_US
*not affiliated with Toys_R_US




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 01:00:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA11212;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:59:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:59:09 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <368B2F9E.3CE8 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:02:38 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Wanted: Old dead tubes (fwd)
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981230204159.16467J-100000 antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QUR-V1.0.6l2.SppYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25489
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 31, 1998

John Schnurer wrote:
 
>         I am looking to see if any of you or your friends have any old
> dead ... or not dead but used .... high power control tubes such as
> thyratrons, ignatrons, rectifiers of the mercury gas type. <snip>

The streets of L.A. were mostly lighted with mercury vapor lights.
Thousands. Now they are rapidly converting to sodium lights. I don't
know what type they use in your area but you probably can get a lot of
used, dead, abused mercury vapor lights from the city street lighting
people --- unless they have a restrictive controlled recycling or
disposal program. Wouldn't hurt to ask. Maybe a study on used sodium
lights may be interesting also. Or on a smaller scale, those burnt out
filaments on flourescent lights. They use mercury in them.
 
>I will share results with the group if anyone is interested.

Sure, thanks, it would be intriguing and informative.
         
>Thanks in advance for your valuable scrounging,
>         John "junk ain't REALLY junk"  Herman Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 01:36:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19707;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:35:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:35:54 -0800
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:27:51 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Circuit...Re: Searching project ! (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981231042612.28847M-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"5aTnK1.0.rp4.wLqYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25490
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	An old Freee Energy circuit ....  Put a chopper charge pump on it 
and you could probably charge a motor cycle battery in acouple of months 
in LA !   :)

	Dear Folks,

	This type of circuit will rectify ambient RF.... the crystal 
tends to also ring at its frequency.  If it is NOT used... the system 
will be more effective.

	This method has been used for years to extract broad band RF and 
power radios.  If you use a voltage doubler rectifier circuit... you can 
double the voltage and halve to current.  This sometimes is easier to use 
for power.

	Antenna is LONG wire ... and ground is good earth ground 
...between them you put an impedance.  Example:

	Antenna will be called "high" or H and ground will be called low 
or "L".
	1] 


	^  <<<< Antenna
	!
	!	_
	!       ^ = a diode, germanium good... diode connecter Ge 
	!		transistor is best
	!	               anode   cathode  ( the >1 is diode )
	!-------//------!----------->1------------------!------------- Output 	
			_ cathode		$	!
			^ anode			$	=  < capacitor
Impedance goes here	!        resistor>	$	!	
			!			$	!
	--------------------------------------------------------
	!
	!
	!	----//---- + a capacitor, all caps are 1 mFd
	!	resistor can be 10 to 500 K ohms.
	!
*****************Earth

	You can get about 30 volts from this in Cincinnati within 10 miles 
of WLW 50,000 watts radio station.


	Not a mystery.... but good fun

	An impedance might be a loop coil would on 2 or 3 foot 
form....play around.

			JHS









On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, dave dameron wrote:

> At 03:35 PM 12/30/98 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi list!
> >
> >Does anyone remember a project publicated about 1 year ago on this list?
> >It was a simple circuit with a common quartz crystal connected with an
> >aerial, resonating with the earth em field... (If I don't mistake..).
> >Could someone please email me the draft with this scheme?
> >
> Could have been Fred Epps' "earthpower" receiver, from Oct 18, 1997?
> In series, in order: 4" ball antenna, 90 Ohm resistor, 3.57MHz crystal, and
> ground.
> Another series circuit in parallel to the crystal:
> 10nF capacitor, 1N270 diode, 100K resistor. Cathode of diode to 10nF cap. 
> Any more input, Fred?
> -Dave
> 
> 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 02:17:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA23853;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:16:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:16:33 -0800
From: aki ix.netcom.com
Message-ID: <368B41C6.68F6 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:20:06 -0800
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
References: <000d01be348b$1251c5c0$63441d26 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UvoBk2.0.dq5.0yqYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25491
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

December 31, 1998

Nice Sandia webpage. Must resonate with you experienced and write about.

Diverging from ZPE for the moment:

Frederick J Sparber wrote:
 
> I used 18" dia bell jars about 36" tall, with the cathode/substrate
> at the top. The anode was a tungsten or moly "boat" heated with a 
> high current power supply. Since the molten metals didn't have the 
> necessary vapor pressure, Argon was used as a "pilot" gas to get 
> things going.
 
> As ancillary R&D, I built a 60 kev ion accelerator that had an 
> electron beam heated crucible with a 0-150 ev electron bombardment 
> ionizer that could ionize the metal vapor as it came out of the 
> refractory metal crucible so that it could be accelerated up to 60 
> kev, then a turn a 90 degree bend using electrostatic optics to 
> separate the un-ionized atoms.
> Then the ions could be literally deposited (implanted in a 
> substrate)in about any pattern and quantity you could think of, with 
> electrostatic (X-Y) deflection plates.

Fascinating work. What was the goal(s) of the work? Classified?
Since this was in the sixties, were there still a lot of vacuum tubes in
the setup equiptments? I would imagine that for the high voltages, there
are still vacuum tube being used.

> This WAS NOT Garage R&D!

I understand. But to slake a thirst for details, can you tell us in the
case of producing the vacuum enviroment used in the experiments, the
level of vacuum that was used. What kind of pumps and filters were used?
And what vacuum gauging systems did you have?

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 03:53:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA00833;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:52:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:52:29 -0800
Message-ID: <002501be34b3$ef0ab800$63441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:50:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"pYLnD1.0.tC.zLsYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25492
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: Thursday, December 31, 1998 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump

Akira wrote:


>December 31, 1998
>Diverging from ZPE for the moment:
>
>Fascinating work. What was the goal(s) of the work? Classified?

At the time the intent was to produce coatings/compounds that were generally
incompatible otherwise, and also semiconductor
doping (which is routine now).


>Since this was in the sixties, were there still a lot of vacuum tubes in
>the setup equiptments?

No, the high voltage power supplies were rectified with series "strings" of
high voltage silicon diodes.

>But to slake a thirst for details, can you tell us in the
>case of producing the vacuum environment used in the experiments, the
>level of vacuum that was used.

The Sputtering Deposition was done around a few torr or less. The Ion
Accelerator pressure had to be as low as 1.0E-8 Torr which was done with a
Turbomolecular Pump backed up with small Vac-Ion Pumps "plumbed" in suitable
locations using lots of Conflat fittings.  :-)

>What kind of pumps and filters were used?
>And what vacuum gauging systems did you have?

Kinney Vacuum, roughing pumps (no filters) were
used on the sputtering systems. The gauges were
the ionization type, or with the vac-ion pumps you could relate power supply
current draw to pressure.

Only the  cost to the taxpayer was "Classified" :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>-ak-
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 04:26:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA05513;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:25:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:25:49 -0800
Message-ID: <000101be34b8$54b00080$494fccd1 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:15:28 -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: <"nKgYR.0.3M1.CrsYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25493
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Eucas wrote:


>At 07:33 PM 12/29/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>I do wonder if there are any high voltage Na lamps commercially available.
>>That might be an easy place to start looking at a "hydrogen free"
approach,
>>to see if the hydrogen plays a key role in the process.
>
>   1) Go to a nearby city, or even some large towns.
>
>   2) Wait until dark.
>
>   3) Look at peoples faces under the streetlight.  If they have a
>"ghoulish" greenish cast, the streetlight is a sodium vapor lamp.


Not quite. the color of a low pressure sodium vapor lamp is pure yellow, and
everything is monochromatic. These are generally no longer used for street
lighting because of the offensive color. However, one town near an
observatory was persuaded to use such lamps, so that the diffuse sky light
could be easily filtered without much net loss of light from the stars.

The Luclox lamps, which have a pinkish cast, are high pressure sodium vapor.
The high pressure in the lamp capsule spreads out the sodium spectrum to a
pleasing color which is centered near the peak sensitivity of the human eye.

The goulish, greenish cast come from mercury vapor lamps. Sometimes these
are enclosed in a bulb with a phosphor coating which emits in the red,
excited by the UV radiation from the mercury discharge, as in a conventional
fluorescent lamp.

<snip>

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 04:46:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA09242;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:46:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:46:05 -0800
Message-ID: <000401be34bb$6b77e1e0$43441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: About SVC (http://www.svc.org/About_SVC.html)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 05:44:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE3480.B1714000"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"yDpHw2.0.GG2.C8tYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25494
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE3480.B1714000
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Old is not necessarily obsolete.  :-)

http://www.svc.org/About_SVC.html

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE3480.B1714000
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="About SVC.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="About SVC.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.svc.org/About_SVC.html
Modified=E0214725BB34BE011B

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE3480.B1714000--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 05:08:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA12959;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 05:07:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 05:07:32 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:07:25 +0000 (BST)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981230132243.3832A-100000 exeter>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981231125555.12509B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ph8Pr.0.PA3.JStYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25495
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dear George,

I respect your point of view but now I have put my finger on what I find
disturbing about your argument. The whole point is that we are trying to
prove that the magnetic energy *is* discontinuous. To construct an
argument using the premise that it is continuous and stays constant at
zero is a bit like going to a trial predjudiced that the about the guilt
or innocence of the parties; all proceding arguments are pointless. It is
closemindedness.

Believe it, or not, I am impartial in this. Your avenue of argument has no
channel to go down and expand, it kills thought.

I insist that when you do the sums, the unshorting of the secondary shield
and the sudden imposition of the flux on the primary has no effect on its
current. Its weird, but it seems so. This must be verified by experiment.

Its a kind of self correcting negative feedback mechanism: flux imposes,
back emf drops primary current, flux proportional so dimishes, this
implies that back emf less, primary current doesn't drop.


I am of course just as guilty in dismissing and being closeminded. My
apologies once again to a certain Mr Sparber whom I laid into a few months
ago on his suggestion for an ou resistor.
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 09:22:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA16580;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:20:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:20:49 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981231121928.00798970 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:19:28 -0500
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Robert Park reviews Mizuno book
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 JAA16551
Resent-Message-ID: <"E2YvI1.0.z24.m9xYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25496
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Park of the APS asked us for a review copy of the Mizuno book,
"Nuclear Transmutation: the Reality of Cold Fusion."  We sent him one, and
I faxed him the attached letter.  He wrote this whimsical review in his
periodic e-mail bulletin, " WHAT'S NEW."



- Jed

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

						December 18, 1998

Dr. Robert Park
Fax: 202-662-8711

Dear Dr. Park,

	Since any publicity is good publicity I welcome your offer to review the
Mizuno book. However, this is a popular book intended for the general
audience, not a scientific treatise. You cannot judge experimental evidence
except by reading the original scientific papers and examining the data.

	A claim of this nature can only be validated when it has been widely
replicated, by dozens of laboratories. Cold fusion has, in fact, been
replicated in hundreds of laboratories at high signal to noise ratios.
Therefore, to judge the issue, you would have sit down and spend a few
weeks poring through papers from Hitachi, Los Alamos, the National Fusion
Institute (which confirmed tritium production), BARC, and so on. Some of
these papers are strongly positive – irrefutably positive, in my opinion.
Some are negative, many are muddled or inconclusive. Cold fusion is
difficult to replicate. The best laboratories, like Mitsubishi, report that
seven out of seven experiments over the past two years produced heat and
gamma rays. In other successful laboratories about half of the cathodes
produce excess heat and nuclear ash. However, most labs only see heat in
perhaps 1 in 10 experiments, because of problems with cathode materials:
the metal does not absorb deuterium, or it absorbs but expands, warps and
fractures. This kind of difficulty replicating an effect is not unusual in
solid state and catalysis applications. In the 1950s, many transistor
production runs failed, or produced only 1 or 2 working devices per
hundred. That is why transistors remained more expensive than vacuum tubes
for several years.

	I presume you do not have time to review hundreds of papers. Therefore, I
recommend you read a small selection of three representative papers:

M. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd
and H/Pd systems,"  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55 (You could read the
full EPRI report instead, "Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear
Processes in Deuterated Metals," EPRI TR-104195, but it is 342 pages.)
Attached please find the Overview and Abstract.

M. Miles et al., "Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems," NAWCWPNS TP
8302, September 1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China
Lake, CA 93555-6100. This was reprinted in our magazine.

T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle, "Tritium Production from a
Low Voltage Deuterium Discharge on Palladium and Other Metals," Los Alamos
National Laboratory. You can read this right away, on Internet:
http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm

	We would be happy to send you copies of the other two papers along with
the book.

						Sincerely,



						Jed Rothwell


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

[The date should have been 1 Jan 99]

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 1 Jan 98   Washington, DC

1. THE UNDEAD: A REVIEW OF "NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION."  The subtitle of this
thin volume by Tadahiko Mizuno is "The Reality of Cold Fusion."  The
publisher is Infinite Energy Press, which probably tells you everything you
need to know.  This year marks the tenth anniversary of the announcement by
the University of Utah that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann had
achieved deuterium fusion in a simple electrolytic cell (WN 24 Mar 89).
Within a matter of weeks, a DOE panel officially pronounced cold fusion
dead, amidst revelations of altered data and suppression of evidence.  But
the corpse does not rest peacefully.  This personal account by one of a
small corps who have not given up on cold fusion is wonderfully revealing
-- but not for what it tells us about science.  "If you limit your goal to
finding fusion products," Mizuno snorts, "anyone can see you will not learn
much.  This is why the focus is now on transmutation."  He says of his
fellow believers, "They have been treated like heretics by the rest of the
scientific community.  This has formed a bond of solidarity between them.
Working with practically no funding against a tide of opposition ...they
have slowly but surely brought about a new discovery."  It is an eloquent
statement of how pathological science survives. In the final chapter Mizuno
asks rhetorically, "What sort of reaction is cold fusion?  As you have seen
in this account we still have no clear idea."  After ten years, nothing has
changed.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 09:36:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24646;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:35:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:35:27 -0800
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:27:15 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Notes...Dowsing... Circuit Searching project (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.981231122658.7332B-100000 antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"YL0PX2.0.r06.SNxYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25497
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:19:05 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Cc: Fred Epps <fepps halcyon.com>,
    John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Notes...Dowsing... Circuit Searching project

 

	Dear Folks,

	See notes in text ....

	Many of you may not know, in much depth, about dowsing.  I have 
found it to be both powerful and mysterious.  With good dowsers, never a 
dull moment!

	Some thoughts on the matter, in no particular order;

	1] there are several types of dowsing.  Including but not limited to;
	Finding things and-or water, oil and so on.  This can be done 
on-site or from maps, removal of 'bad energy', healing ... and, as Fred 
describes ..designing and-or repairing stuff, answering questions ... and 
more!

	2] many people, dowsers included, have fixed notions about what 
Dowsing is, what can or cannot be done.  A couple of examples of dowsers' 
fixed ideas;

	a] One legend was a 'finder' dowser [those who can find lost items] 
cannot dowse for an item in a box colored red or painted red.   A challenge 
was put forth  for a finder to find an item buried on purpose for the 
test in a farmer's yard.  The dowser dowsed for a red box and found it.  
Many finders have no trouble with a red box, or any other color or kind 
of box.
	b] Another story told of the dowsing ability being 'blocked' by a
strip of aluminum foil on the forehead or a band around the forehead. 
Some of the dowsers who believed in the saying could not dowse with Al
foil strip on head .... others poo pooed the idea, tried the foil and it
had no effect on the dowsing.
	c] A classic part of what I will call 'white dowsing' is to ask
permission BEFORE asking a question or finding an object or objects. 
There are several documented cases of a non dowser asking a dowser to find
a treasure and the dowser asks creation "Is this OK"? .. and on getting a
no it is NOT OK ... the dowser does not perform the task... but some
dowsers will attempt the task.  I would term the 'go ahead after NO Don't
do it' grey or black dowsers.  This 'no, don't' response has been so in
some cases where the 'treasure' is actually the proceeds of a robbery,
sometimes a robbery with violence. 
	d] Asking questions:  The process of using a dowser to answer 
questions is VERY interesting... in some cases I have been involved with, 
in the matter of designing an instrument, it worked.  I feel strongly the 
process is affected by the participants... what they or others present 
know... even if 'subconcious'... how the questions are asked.... the 
mental state of the asker and the answerer.
	Sometimes a pendulum is used.
	e] One aspect of dowsing is a property called a Ley line.  These 
are straight lines that traverse the earth and can be detected by dowsers.

	Finally:  MOST of the information about dowsing;

 	*	written about dowsing by dowsers and non dowsers
	*	conveyed by stories
	*	conveyed by media

..... is just plain flat incorrect.  The publication with the lowest EQ,
or Error Quotient, is the quarterly American Society of Dowsers
publication.  If you want to learn SOME about dowsers, contact ASD, just
call information in Danville Vermont and ask for the chapter in your
area... and go visit.  It is best to keep an open mind AND consult more
than one dowser.  Know that almost all information about dowsing is out of
context and colored by the conveyers of the information.  There are few
good white dowsers who jump and shout 'LOOKAT ME..I'm a dowser'.  Ask the
simple question of your aquaintences "Have you ever heard of dowsing?"
....  You will be surprised if you ask enough people.
	I have kept an open mind for years and have worked closely with 
dowsers and other persons who exhibit what I like to call 'the dowsing 
reflex' and have enjoyed many eye opening experiences.  


	Hardball engineering I have done in the field:

	These are instruments I built or effects which were recorded by 
off-the-shelf instrumentation;

	* Locate and detect Ley lines
	* How the healing dowsing reflex can be expressed as bio potentials
	* Dowsing reflex changes physical matter
	* Change of matter from a distance
	* Instrumentation of hand movements in pendulum dowsing
	* Recording of biopotentials in 'Dowsing Reflex Events'

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Fred Epps wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> If you have read my more recent post about the provenance of this
> gadget, then you will see that the most interesting thing about it was
> that it was dowsed rather than designed. BTW, this was done about 3
> years ago, and my understanding of electronics was very dim then (maybe
> it is now :-) In any case, at that time there is no way I could have
> designed anything that would work in any way, much less my wife.
> 
	Not true.... the dowsing reflex can draw on many sources.  In my 
opinion your wife may have at one time just glanced at a schematic... 
amybe 10 yrears ago and-or overheard conversation ... and have a 'hidden 
background' in electronics.   Also the way one puts questions matters... 
and your knowledge, very important, colors matters.

	You should enjoy reading several beginners books on electronics, 
and have your wife page through them too. 


> >
> > This type of circuit will rectify ambient RF.... the crystal
> >tends to also ring at its frequency.  If it is NOT used... the system
> >will be more effective.
> 
> Well I just put in what the spirit guides told me to :-)  The crystal
> was specified as to frequency and cut.
> 
	What was the cut and frequency?

> > Not a mystery.... but good fun
> 
> Maybe not a mystery, except how my wife could 'tune into' a radio
> design.

	Dowsing draws from MANY sources....

> 
> BTW, the dowsed power output was in the 50 W range, which seems
> inconceivable to me, but I asked several times, that was always the
> answer. The diode couldn't even take 50 W.. so maybe it is all
> nonsense...

	Well ... did you build it?

	Unless the dowser is completely familiar with units and values 
then you can get errors.  Anoter source of error, very common, is some 
preconcieved idea in the mind of either party ... such as "This design 
MUST have a crystal.   It is Extremely important all parties learn to 
control and guide or 'focus' their thoughts during an exercies in dowsing.


	

> 
> Fred


	I expect some readers to be disbelievers.   That is OK.  If you 
ever have the opportunity to see a well controlled experiment, such as the 
matter change experiments you will be glad you did.
	To see a test tube full of water clamped onto ring stand and 
instrumented solely with optics...CHANGE in some property... say surface 
tension ... just by the intent and dowsing reflex of a dowser who does 
NOT touch the set up.... and see this reproducibly ... well 'ya jest 
ain't lived good yit'

	I am leaving out something important... but it will come to me 
and when it does, I will post.


				JHS


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 12:03:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17414;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:56:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:56:21 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: OU Double coil
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:03:41 -0500
Message-ID: <01be34f8$a992da60$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: <"JHwgY.0.yF4.bRzYs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25498
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Remi,
The opinion I offered is based on many
experiments in magnetics. I have boxes filled 
with hundreds of coils and cores and circuit boards,
the remnants of experiments on at least 30 different ideas
for magnetic OU. Several of these ideas were based on
understanding the reason why Greg Watson's ideas didn't work.
-
By all means do the experiment, that is
how you build an understanding of what is actually
happening, which is much more complex than the standard textbook view.
After much work a couple of the 30+ ideas
still look promising, and are still being investigated.
-
Let me try this one more time. Electron flow has no significant
intrinsic momentum. The continued electron flow in a coil continues
only because of the voltages induced by the changing magnetic flux.
When S2 is opened, there is nearly zero flux in the coil and there is 
no flux to collapse and induce continuing current flow.
-
George
-
George Holz  - george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 12:51:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10840;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:51:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:51:03 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b2b191dc2e50 [12.21.208.9]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:59:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pumping
Resent-Message-ID: <"iHXFT2.0.If2.sE-Ys" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25499
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:52 AM 12/30/98, Frederick J Sparber wrote:
>To: Vortex
>
>Something to ponder is a possible connection between the extraordinary high
>yield of Secondary Emission electrons from insulators
>and ZPE Pumping.
>
>The secondary yield from MgO crystals is about 16 Secondaries/Primary at
>primary energies from
>600 to 2,000 ev peaking at 24 at 1400 ev then dropping to 12 at about 3600
>ev.
>
>The calculated penetration depth is around 200 angstroms, and the secondary
>energies range from about 10 ev up to the primary electron energy.

If there is more than one at the primary energy that sounds ou in itself.

One reasonable guess is that the secondaries are a result of photon
stimulation.  If the energy of the photons gets too high then the secondary
electron emission should fall off as more of the secondary radiation
escapes in the form of photons, true?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 13:42:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19880;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000d01be3506$20356a40$d3441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Electron ZPE Pump
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:39:11 -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: <"sbxc63.0.Us4.yz-Ys" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25500
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace said,

"If you get more than one secondary emission electron/primary it would be
ou".

Yes,but if you get more than four back at half the energy.....etc.  :-)

The bottom line is to electron bombard different metals and do precise
calorimetry
to see if there are any O-U effects.

It would seem that the low Z metals with Z electrons per nuclear charge
would have less
"screening" of the nucleus and thus a better chance for the ZPE Pumping
effect. (if it exists)

Vacuum tubes, x-ray tubes (water cooled) and such would be the best
off-the-shelf items to use for the calorimetry experiments.

Otherwise Beryllium tubing, graphite shapes, or
Boron/boron carbide shapes would be the next best bet.

After all, if you are shaking a box of marbles
and getting out more energy that you put in, there has to be some physics at
work.

The trick is to do some experiments to find out what kind of physics,or you
can keep on shaking the box and hypothesizing until the cows come home. :-)

Regards,   Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 15:58:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA06158;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:57:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:57:59 -0800
From: chronos mail.enter.net
Message-Id: <199812312357.SAA22152 mail.enter.net>
To: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:31:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Happy New Year!
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <368B2765.21EE822D verisoft.com.tr>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Resent-Message-ID: <"m7BnY2.0.8W1.6-0Zs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25501
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


On 31 Dec 98, at 9:27, hamdi ucar wrote:

> Dear all my friends,
> I wish a really new year to you and substantial achivements in your researchs. I feel how will be magic this last year of twenty century!
> hamdi ucar


Thanks Hamdi. Since it is already Next Year in your country, here 
are some profound words to ponder....


Two atoms are walking down the street and they run in to each 
other. One  says to the other, "Are you all right?" "No, I lost an 
electron!" 'Are you sure?' "Yeah, I'm positive!"


A neutron goes into a bar and asks the bartender, "How much for a 
beer?"  The bartender replies, "For you, no charge."


Several experts were asked to prove that all odd integers higher 
than 2 are prime.  

Mathematician: 3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, and by
induction - every odd integer higher than 2 is a prime.

Physicist: 3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 is an
experimental error, 11 is a prime,...

Engineer: 3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 is a prime, 11 
is a prime,... 

Programmer: 3's a prime, 5's a prime, 7's a prime, 7's a prime,
7's a prime,... 

Biologist: 3 is a prime, 5 is a
prime, 7 is a prime, 9 results have not arrived yet,... 

Salesperson: 3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9
we'll do for you the best we can,... 

Lawyer: 3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 there is not 
enough evidence to prove that it is not a prime,...  



The biggest howler of all is Bill Gates' REAL blooper immortalized 
on page 265 of his book "The Road Ahead"  

    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern
    encryption] would be development of an easy way to factor large
    prime numbers." 



OK, I know these jokes are lame. We need some good Duck 
Jokes -- science-related, of course.

Happy New Year to All.  

-- Bob Flower



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 18:10:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28144;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:09:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:09:42 -0800
Message-ID: <001a01be352b$ad915000$d3441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <fstenger interlaced.net>
Subject: Re: Electrostatic ZPE Perpetual  Motion Machine
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:08:00 -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: <"iH4LN.0.ct6.cv2Zs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25502
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If one has an "articulated" Negative capacitor plate driven by a crank
hooked to a generator/flywheel at a very high potential that approaches and
almost touches a fixed capacitor plate with a positive charge, the ZPE
Pumping effect should add mass/energy to the electrons and replenish the
mass lost by the nuclei in the positive plate.

Now, if Rube Goldberg was around, he would get together with "Wiley Coyote"
and come up with some plans for using these heavy/hot electrons
to complete the cycle.

Happy New Year! See ya Next Year.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 19:43:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA19082;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:42:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:42:47 -0800
Message-ID: <002301be3538$adebb920$d3441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Happy 1999!
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:41:46 -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: <"drIWC.0.4g4.sG4Zs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25503
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




>Bob's Psychic Predictions For 1999
>Remember -- You saw it here first!
>
>January -- New Scandal:
>A new Washington financial scandal will be in the headlines, when it
>is discovered that extraterrestrial aliens contributed campaign funds
>to the Democratic National Committee. Not knowing how to return the
>money, the government will transfer the funds to the NSA, thus
>converting the "Gray" Budget into a Black Budget. The windfall funds
>will be spent on wild parties, but of course no one will know it.
>The aliens have, of course, anticipated this, as it was their plan all
>along to keep the NSA incapacitated for the next 12 months.
>
>February -- Missing Time:
>A new record in "missing time" will be set by the reappearance of
>Jimmy Hoffa, who was abducted by aliens in 1975. His 24-year record
>will be short lived however, lasting only until the return of Amelia
>Earhart, missing since 1937.
>Another record of sorts will be posted by a candidate for County
>Treasurer in a western state, who will be returned by time-traveling
>aliens one day before he left. Both instances of the individual will
>vote for himself, thus winning the county election by the narrowest of
>margins.
>
>March -- Global Warming:
>Global warming will produce unprecedented thawing in the far north.
>Receding ice will lead to the rediscovery of the grave of St. Urho,
>the saint who drove the grasshoppers out of Finland. Finnish legend
>credits him with the phrase, "Hein”sirkka, hein”sirkka, meine t””tt”
>hiiteen", or "Grasshopper, grasshopper, get the hell out of here". (In
>support of the legend, note that although Finland has no grasshoppers,
>there is a word for grasshopper in the language.)
>
>April -- Stock Market:
>The stock market will fluctuate up and down throughout the month. Some
>people will make money, others will lose. There are strong psychic
>indications that this trend will persist through the end of the year.
>
>May -- Global Weather:
>The subsidence of El Nino and El Nina will give rise to a new weather
>pattern, known as "Il Bambino del Maltempo" (the bad weather baby), as
>the job of naming weather anomalies will be taken over by the
>Italians.
>I also feel at this time that there is a strong possibility that a 6.8
>or higher earthquake will level the Serbian National Library,
>destroying their book.
>
>June -- Environmental Issues:
>An environmentally insensitive move by the French to harvest trees
>along their traditionally tree-lined country lanes, will be met with
>vociferous opposition by the rest of the European Community;
>particularly by the Germans, who prefer to march in the shade.
>
>July -- Pole Shift:
>A massive pole shift will leave Warsaw a ghost town, and Chicago
>overflowing with new immigrants. A subsequent, but smaller, pole shift
>will see the Pope retiring to Hawaii, where he will be known
>affectionately as "Big Papa Kahuna".
>
>August -- Government Spending:
>Government overspending will be in the news as a military warehouse is
>discovered containing an estimated 400,000,000 rolls of toilet paper
>-- enough to "wipe" the entire planet earth, if the appropriate -
>shall we say - "orifice" could be found somewhere on the planet. In
>the belief that this location is already known, the entire supply will
>be shipped to Cleveland.
>
>September - News Items:
>I foresee several items in September's news.
>- The IRS will disallow claims of implant removals as short-term
>losses.
>- Hillary Clinton will deny a secret agreement with the Ashtar
>Command.
>- Philip Klass will finally admit to membership in MJ-12.
>- A crop circle will appear in Colin Andrews' shag carpet.
>- El Chupacabras will sign to star in a Japanese horror film.
>
>October -- UFO Lands on White House Lawn:
>The long-awaited landing of an alien space ship on the White House
>lawn will finally take place, where it will be first approached by the
>dog, Buddy. By universal tradition, Buddy will automatically become
>earth's ambassador to the Galactic Federation, and earth's highest
>ranking entity. His first official move will be to have his Human
>neutered. The action will be met with widespread popular approval and
>relief.
>
>November - Fiscal Mystery:
>November is traditionally the month of mysteries. A high official of
>MUFON will reveal for the first time that the organization is
>supported financially by a tabloid newspaper, the National Enquirer.
>The mystery deepens as it is discovered that the National Enquirer is
>financed by the Bilderberger Group, who in turn are financed by --
>MUFON.
>In a surreptitious effort to learn how it is done, Canada's Minister
>of Finance will initiate a covert inquiry into the matter.
>
>December - Celebrities in the News:
>- Rush Limbaugh will be fired. Unemployed, he will become a Democrat.
>- Hugh Hefner will abruptly leave his Playboy empire and will throw
>all his time and money into the search for a cure for impotence. He
>will not discuss his reasons.
>- Brooke Shields' eyebrows will finally grow together.
>- PBS Television will announce a new series on the lives of famous
>composers. In the series opener, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be Bach.
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>I expect no less than full credit for these psychic predictions as
>events occur.
>
>Best regards,
>Bob
>
>===============================================================
>|     I N S T I T U T E   F O R   U F O   R E S E A R C H     |
>===============================================================
>|         Bob Thrift           |    Editor, UFOCUS Magazine   |
>|    Webmaster, IUR Web Site   |  http://www.frii.com/~iufor/ |
>|    Fort Collins, Colorado    |    email: iufor frii.com     |
>===============================================================
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 23:18:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA31980;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:17:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:17:23 -0800
Message-ID: <002801be3556$a9378440$d3441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <fstenger interlaced.net>
Subject: Re: Antiferromagnetic-Magneto Pulsed-Electrostatic  ZPE Motor 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 00:15:36 -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: <"1PISv2.0.Yp7.3Q7Zs" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25504
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

If a negatively charged capacitor plate approaches a positively charged
plate and the
ZPE Pumping heats the electrons in it whilst replenishing the energy donated
by the nuclei
in the positive plate (where the charge/potential is supplied by a
Magneto-Flywheel-Crank arrangement, the plate should heat up from the energy
dumped by the electrons.

Taking advantage of Antiferromagnetic Effects (Magnetocaloric effects)of
compounds such as FeRh alloy,MnTe,CrSb,Cr2O3,and YBaCu3O6 (and the Neel
Temperature)integral with the plate, and some permanent magnets,one might
end up with a ZPE Motor. Or an interesting conversation piece.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Dec 31 23:35:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA06039;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <002d01be3558$457d8240$d3441d26 default>
From: "Frederick J Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <fstenger interlaced.net>
Subject: Mechanisms for Induced Magnetization (http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/AppGe
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 00:27:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01BE351D.8D1A7E40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"CJW9c3.0.HU1.uf7Zs" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/25505
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_003D_01BE351D.8D1A7E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Covers Antiferromagnetic effects.

http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/AppGeo/lectures/mag/typesmag.html

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BE351D.8D1A7E40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Mechanisms for Induced Magnetization.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Mechanisms for Induced Magnetization.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/AppGeo/lectures/mag/typesmag.html
Modified=807B39055835BE0185

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BE351D.8D1A7E40--